linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/membarrier: Introduce MEMBARRIER_CMD_GET

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]
Message-ID: <0da8f3df-afb8-33e9-f90a-834fac0673e4@efficios.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 10:23:17 -0500
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Michał Cłapiński <mclapinski@...gle.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 2022-12-20 12:51, Michał Cłapiński wrote:
> 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?

I do not think that would be better, no. We can keep it with 
GET_REGISTRATIONS.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>        /* 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.

OK

>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +                     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.

Although it's not a fast-path, so let's keep it this way for now.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> +             }
>>>> +     }
>>>> +     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?

No, I think those patches are ok.

Thanks,

Mathieu





-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com