linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] srcu: Remove pre-flip memory barrier

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: <71C23049-158C-4E43-A54F-714640393682@joelfernandes.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:19:06 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] srcu: Remove pre-flip memory barrier



> On Dec 22, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:40:10PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:11:42PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-21 06:59, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 10:34:19PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>> The memory ordering constraint I am concerned about here is:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  * [...] In addition,
>>>>>  * each CPU having an SRCU read-side critical section that extends beyond
>>>>>  * the return from synchronize_srcu() is guaranteed to have executed a
>>>>>  * full memory barrier after the beginning of synchronize_srcu() and before
>>>>>  * the beginning of that SRCU read-side critical section. [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>> So if we have a SRCU read-side critical section that begins after the beginning
>>>>> of synchronize_srcu, but before its first memory barrier, it would miss the
>>>>> guarantee that the full memory barrier is issued before the beginning of that
>>>>> SRCU read-side critical section. IOW, that memory barrier needs to be at the
>>>>> very beginning of the grace period.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm confused, what's wrong with this ?
>>>> 
>>>> UPDATER                  READER
>>>> -------                  ------
>>>> STORE X = 1              STORE srcu_read_lock++
>>>> // rcu_seq_snap()        smp_mb()
>>>> smp_mb()                 READ X
>>>> // scans
>>>> READ srcu_read_lock
>>> 
>>> What you refer to here is only memory ordering of the store to X and load
>>> from X wrt loading/increment of srcu_read_lock, which is internal to the
>>> srcu implementation. If we really want to model the provided high-level
>>> memory ordering guarantees, we should consider a scenario where SRCU is used
>>> for its memory ordering properties to synchronize other variables.
>>> 
>>> I'm concerned about the following Dekker scenario, where synchronize_srcu()
>>> and srcu_read_lock/unlock would be used instead of memory barriers:
>>> 
>>> Initial state: X = 0, Y = 0
>>> 
>>> Thread A                   Thread B
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> STORE X = 1                STORE Y = 1
>>> synchronize_srcu()
>>>                           srcu_read_lock()
>>>                           r1 = LOAD X
>>>                           srcu_read_unlock()
>>> r0 = LOAD Y
>>> 
>>> BUG_ON(!r0 && !r1)
>>> 
>>> So in the synchronize_srcu implementation, there appears to be two
>>> major scenarios: either srcu_gp_start_if_needed starts a gp or expedited gp,
>>> or it uses an already started gp/expedited gp. When snapshotting with
>>> rcu_seq_snap, the fact that the memory barrier is after the ssp->srcu_gp_seq
>>> load means that it does not order prior memory accesses before that load.
>>> This sequence value is then used to identify which gp_seq to wait for when
>>> piggy-backing on another already-started gp. I worry about reordering
>>> between STORE X = 1 and load of ssp->srcu_gp_seq, which is then used to
>>> piggy-back on an already-started gp.
>>> 
>>> I suspect that the implicit barrier in srcu_read_lock() invoked at the
>>> beginning of srcu_gp_start_if_needed() is really the barrier that makes
>>> all this behave as expected. But without documentation it's rather hard to
>>> follow.
>> 
>> Oh ok I see now. It might be working that way by accident or on forgotten
>> purpose. In any case, we really want to add a comment above that
>> __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() call.
> 
> Another test for the safety (or not) of removing either D or E is
> to move that WRITE_ONCE() to follow (or, respectively, precede) the
> adjacent scans.

Good idea, though I believe the MBs that the above talk about are not the flip ones. They are the ones in synchronize_srcu() beginning and end, that order with respect to grace period start and end.

So that (flipping MBs) is unrelated, or did I miss something?

Thanks.



> 
>                            Thanx, Paul