linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3 08/36] x86/smpboot: Split up native_cpu_up() into separate phases and document them

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]

Date:   Tue, 09 May 2023 19:59:26 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        Piotr Gorski <lucjan.lucjanov@...il.com>,
        Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Sabin Rapan <sabrapan@...zon.com>,
        "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch v3 08/36] x86/smpboot: Split up native_cpu_up() into
 separate phases and document them

On Tue, May 09 2023 at 14:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, May 09 2023 at 12:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Sync point with wait_cpu_callin(). The AP doesn't wait here
>>> +	 * but just sets the bit to let the controlling CPU (BSP) know that
>>> +	 * it's got this far.
>>> +	 */
>>>  	smp_callin();
>>>  
>>> -	/* otherwise gcc will move up smp_processor_id before the cpu_init */
>>> +	/* Otherwise gcc will move up smp_processor_id() before cpu_init() */
>>>  	barrier();
>>
>> Not to the detriment of this patch, but this barrier() and it's comment
>> seem weird vs smp_callin(). That function ends with an atomic bitop (it
>> has to, at the very least it must not be weaker than store-release) but
>> also has an explicit wmb() to order setup vs CPU_STARTING.
>>
>> (arguably that should be a full fence *AND* get a comment)
>>
>> There is no way the smp_processor_id() referred to in this comment can
>> land before cpu_init() even without the barrier().
>
> Right. Let me clean that up.

So I went and tried to figure out where this comes from. It's from
d8f19f2cac70 ("[PATCH] x86-64 merge") in the history tree. One of those
well documented combo patches which change world and some more. The
context back then was:

	/*
	 * Dont put anything before smp_callin(), SMP
	 * booting is too fragile that we want to limit the
	 * things done here to the most necessary things.
	 */
	cpu_init();
	smp_callin();

	Dprintk("cpu %d: waiting for commence\n", smp_processor_id()); 

That still does not explain what the barrier is doing. I tried to
harvest mailing list archives, but did not find anything. The back then
list discuss@...-64.org was never publicly archived... Boris gave me an
tarball, but this 'barrier()' add on was nowhere discussed in public.

As the barrier has no obvious value, I'm adding a patch upfront which
removes it.

Thanks,

        tglx