linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct ordering for lockless qdisc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:38:37 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     <davem@...emloft.net>, <olteanv@...il.com>, <ast@...nel.org>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <andriin@...com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <weiwan@...gle.com>, <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        <ap420073@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...neuler.org>,
        <mkl@...gutronix.de>, <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        <andrii@...nel.org>, <kafai@...com>, <songliubraving@...com>,
        <yhs@...com>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <mzhivich@...mai.com>, <johunt@...mai.com>,
        <albcamus@...il.com>, <kehuan.feng@...il.com>,
        <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, <atenart@...nel.org>,
        <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, <hdanton@...a.com>, <jgross@...e.com>,
        <JKosina@...e.com>, <mkubecek@...e.cz>, <bjorn@...nel.org>,
        <alobakin@...me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] net: sched: add barrier to ensure correct
 ordering for lockless qdisc

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 17:30:47 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:04:14 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > The spin_trylock() was assumed to contain the implicit
> > barrier needed to ensure the correct ordering between
> > STATE_MISSED setting/clearing and STATE_MISSED checking
> > in commit a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck
> > problem for lockless qdisc").
> > 
> > But it turns out that spin_trylock() only has load-acquire
> > semantic, for strongly-ordered system(like x86), the compiler
> > barrier implicitly contained in spin_trylock() seems enough
> > to ensure the correct ordering. But for weakly-orderly system
> > (like arm64), the store-release semantic is needed to ensure
> > the correct ordering as clear_bit() and test_bit() is store
> > operation, see queued_spin_lock().
> > 
> > So add the explicit barrier to ensure the correct ordering
> > for the above case.
> > 
> > Fixes: a90c57f2cedd ("net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for lockless qdisc")
> > Signed-off-by: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>  
> 
> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

Actually.. do we really need the _before_atomic() barrier?
I'd think we only need to make sure we re-check the lock 
after we set the bit, ordering of the first check doesn't 
matter.