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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAi7L5cRRbT=N1TmMc+SVnym7UOgD+2F=Skjzx=7CbUoyCzUhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:51:18 +0100
From:   Michał Cłapiński <mclapinski@...gle.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/membarrier: Introduce MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET_REGISTRATIONS

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 7:04 PM Michał Cłapiński <mclapinski@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 6:07 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-12-07 11:43, Michal Clapinski wrote:
> > > Provide a method to query previously issued registrations.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Clapinski <mclapinski@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >   include/uapi/linux/membarrier.h |  4 ++++
> > >   kernel/sched/membarrier.c       | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >   2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/membarrier.h b/include/uapi/linux/membarrier.h
> > > index 737605897f36..5f3ad6d5be6f 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/membarrier.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/membarrier.h
> > > @@ -137,6 +137,9 @@
> > >    * @MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED:
> > >    *                          Alias to MEMBARRIER_CMD_GLOBAL. Provided for
> > >    *                          header backward compatibility.
> > > + * @MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET_REGISTRATIONS:
> > > + *                          Returns a bitmask of previously issued
> > > + *                          registration commands.
> > >    *
> > >    * Command to be passed to the membarrier system call. The commands need to
> > >    * be a single bit each, except for MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY which is assigned to
> > > @@ -153,6 +156,7 @@ enum membarrier_cmd {
> > >       MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE     = (1 << 6),
> > >       MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ                   = (1 << 7),
> > >       MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ          = (1 << 8),
> > > +     MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET_REGISTRATIONS                        = (1 << 9),
>
> Btw. I could do this as a flag to MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY instead of a
> separate command. Would that be preferable?
>
>
> > >
> > >       /* Alias for header backward compatibility. */
> > >       MEMBARRIER_CMD_SHARED                   = MEMBARRIER_CMD_GLOBAL,
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> > > index 0c5be7ebb1dc..2ad881d07752 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> > > @@ -159,7 +159,8 @@
> > >       | MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED                              \
> > >       | MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED                     \
> > >       | MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE_BITMASK                \
> > > -     | MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ_BITMASK)
> > > +     | MEMBARRIER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ_BITMASK                     \
> > > +     | MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET_REGISTRATIONS)
> > >
> > >   static void ipi_mb(void *info)
> > >   {
> > > @@ -540,6 +541,40 @@ static int membarrier_register_private_expedited(int flags)
> > >       return 0;
> > >   }
> > >
> > > +static int membarrier_get_registrations(void)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct task_struct *p = current;
> > > +     struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
> > > +     int registrations_mask = 0, membarrier_state, i;
> > > +     static const int states[] = {
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED |
> > > +                     MEMBARRIER_STATE_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED_READY,
> >
> > What is the purpose of checking for the _READY state flag as well here ?
>
> Answered below.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED |
> > > +                     MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_READY,
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE |
> > > +                     MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE_READY,
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ |
> > > +                     MEMBARRIER_STATE_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ_READY
> > > +     };
> > > +     static const int registration_cmds[] = {
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_GLOBAL_EXPEDITED,
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED,
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE,
> > > +             MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ
> > > +     };
> > > +     BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(states) != ARRAY_SIZE(registration_cmds));
> > > +
> > > +     membarrier_state = atomic_read(&mm->membarrier_state);
> > > +     for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(states); ++i) {
> > > +             if (membarrier_state & states[i]) {
> >
> > The mask will match if either of the flags to match are set. Is that
> > your intent ?
>
> Kind of, it was just the easiest to write. As explained in the cover
> letter, I don't really care much about the result of this while the
> process is running. And when the process is frozen, either state and
> state_ready are set or none of them.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > +                     registrations_mask |= registration_cmds[i];
> > > +                     membarrier_state &= ~states[i];
> >
> > So I understand that those _READY flags are there purely for making sure
> > we clear the membarrier_state for validation that they have all been
> > checked with the following WARN_ON_ONCE(). Am I on the right track ?
>
> Yes, exactly. It wastes time but I'm worried about people adding new
> states and not updating this function. A suggestion on how to do this
> better (especially at compile time) would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> >
> > > +             }
> > > +     }
> > > +     WARN_ON_ONCE(membarrier_state != 0);
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > > +     return registrations_mask;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >   /**
> > >    * sys_membarrier - issue memory barriers on a set of threads
> > >    * @cmd:    Takes command values defined in enum membarrier_cmd.
> > > @@ -623,6 +658,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(membarrier, int, cmd, unsigned int, flags, int, cpu_id)
> > >               return membarrier_private_expedited(MEMBARRIER_FLAG_RSEQ, cpu_id);
> > >       case MEMBARRIER_CMD_REGISTER_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_RSEQ:
> > >               return membarrier_register_private_expedited(MEMBARRIER_FLAG_RSEQ);
> > > +     case MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET_REGISTRATIONS:
> > > +             return membarrier_get_registrations();
> > >       default:
> > >               return -EINVAL;
> > >       }
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > https://www.efficios.com
> >

Hi Mathieu,
is there anything more you need from my side?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ