linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid compiler optimization in __resctrl_sched

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: <CAKwvOdnRvd5KK01awAyeyt5S36TPPW4_8Z6YL1r4gB-pBrHTbg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 16:16:52 -0800
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
        reinette.chatre@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
        peternewman@...gle.com, james.morse@....com, babu.moger@....com,
        ananth.narayan@....com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid compiler optimization in __resctrl_sched_in

Start of Lore thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230303231133.1486085-1-eranian@google.com/

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 4:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:11:33PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> > The problem is located in the __resctrl_sched_in() routine which rewrites
> > the active closid via the PQR_ASSOC register. Because this is an expensive
> > operation, the kernel only does it when the context switch involves tasks
> > with different CLOSID. And to check that, it needs to access the current
> > task's closid field using current->closid. current is actually a macro
> > that reads the per-cpu variable pcpu_hot.current_task.
> >
> > After an investigation by compiler experts, the problem has been tracked down
> > to the usage of the get_current() macro in the __resctrl_sched_in() code and
> > in particular the per-cpu macro:
> >
> > static __always_inline struct task_struct *get_current(void)
> > {
> >         return this_cpu_read_stable(pcpu_hot.current_task);
> > }
> >
> > And as per percpu.h:
> >
> > /*
> >  * this_cpu_read() makes gcc load the percpu variable every time it is
> >  * accessed while this_cpu_read_stable() allows the value to be cached.
> >  * this_cpu_read_stable() is more efficient and can be used if its value
> >  * is guaranteed to be valid across cpus.  The current users include
> >  * get_current() and get_thread_info() both of which are actually
> >  * per-thread variables implemented as per-cpu variables and thus
> >  * stable for the duration of the respective task.
> >  */
> >
> > The _stable version of the macro allows the value to be cached, meaning it
> > does not force a reload.
>
> Right, so afaict the difference between this_cpu_read() and
> this_cpu_read_stable() is the volatile qualifier.
>
> this_cpu_read() is asm volatile(), while this_cpu_read_stable() and
> raw_cpu_read() are both an unqualified asm().
>
> Now, afaiu we're inlining all of this into __switch_to(), which has
> raw_cpu_write(pcpu_hot.current_task, next_p).
>
> And I suppose what the compiler is doing is lifting the 'current' load
> over that store, but how is it allowed that? I thought C was supposed to
> have PO consistency, That raw_cpu_write() should be seen as a store to
> to pcpu_hot.current_task, why can it lift a load over the store?
>
> Specifically, percpu_to_op() has a "+m" output constaint while
> percpu_stable_op() has a "p" input constraint on the same address.

I definitely think the issue is specific to "p" constraints.
https://godbolt.org/z/34YeG6WbY is the test case I reduced which I
think demonstrates the issue.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D145416
-> click "Show Older Changes" for the ongoing discussion.

I don't have a satisfactory answer yet, but am looking into this.

>
> Compiler folks help?



-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers