linux-kernel - Re: Can you help us on memory barrier usage? (was Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders)

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: <44b2cf99-7d87-42ac-8446-fe0822c89c97@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:23:44 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
 Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can you help us on memory barrier usage? (was Re: [PATCH v4 4/6]
 mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders)

On 22/03/2024 02:38, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Paul,
> 
> Can you help us on WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() usage as follows?
> For some example kernel code as follows,
> 
> "
> unsigned char x[16];
> 
> void writer(void)
> {
>         memset(x, 1, sizeof(x));
>         /* To make memset() take effect ASAP */
>         barrier();
> }
> 
> unsigned char reader(int n)
> {
>         return READ_ONCE(x[n]);
> }
> "
> 
> where, writer() and reader() may be called on 2 CPUs without any lock.

For the situation we are discussing, writer() is always called with a spin lock
held. So spin_unlock() will act as the barrier in this case; that's my argument
for not needing the explicit barrier(), anyway. Happy to be told I'm wrong.

> It's acceptable for reader() to read the written value a little later.
> Our questions are,
> 
> 1. because it's impossible for accessing "unsigned char" to cause
> tearing.  So, WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()/barrier() isn't necessary for
> correctness, right?
> 
> 2. we use barrier() and READ_ONCE() in writer() and reader(), because we
> want to make writing take effect ASAP.  Is it a good practice?  Or it's
> a micro-optimization that should be avoided?
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying