[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1JaE/ot91Z0KXuC@andrea>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:36:35 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix race when vmap stack overflow
> > > + atomic_set_release(&spin_shadow_stack, 0);
> >
> > Have not really looked the details: should there be a matching acquire?
>
> I use atomic_set_release here, because I need earlier memory
> operations finished to make sure the sp is ready then set the spin
> flag.
>
> The following memory operations order is not important, because we
> just care about sp value.
>
> Also, we use relax amoswap before, because sp has naturelly
> dependency. But giving them RCsc is okay here, because we don't care
> about performance here.
Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not really suggesting to add unneeded synchronization, even more
so in local/private constructs as in this case. It just felt odd to
see the release without a pairing acquire, so I asked. ;-)
Thanks,
Andrea
> eg:
> handle_kernel_stack_overflow:
> +1: la sp, spin_shadow_stack
> + amoswap.w.aqrl sp, sp, (sp)
> + bnez sp, 1b
> +
> ....
> + smp_store_release(&spin_shadow_stack, 0);
> + smp_mb();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists