[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTROm_ifvbccUmj0_CTLNq5oh1GC+XCLX+NQm4L5P71CFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 22:35:23 +0800
From: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
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
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 4:36 PM Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > > + 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. ;-)
Okay, let's keep:
handle_kernel_stack_overflow:
+1: la sp, spin_shadow_stack
+ amoswap.w sp, sp, (sp)
+ bnez sp, 1b
+
....
+ smp_store_release(&spin_shadow_stack, 0);
>
> 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();
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren
Powered by blists - more mailing lists