netdev - Re: IGMP and rwlock: Dead ocurred again on TILEPro

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:51:37 -0500
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
To:	Cypher Wu <cypher.w@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IGMP and rwlock: Dead ocurred again on TILEPro

On 2/17/2011 10:16 PM, Cypher Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com> wrote:
>> The interrupt architecture on Tile allows a write to a special-purpose
>> register to put you into a "critical section" where no interrupts or faults
>> are delivered.  So we just need to bracket the read_lock operations with
>> two SPR writes; each takes six machine cycles, so we're only adding 12
>> cycles to the total cost of taking or releasing a read lock on an rwlock
> I agree that just lock interrupt for read operations should be enough,
> but read_unlock() is also the place we should lock interrupt, right?
> If interrupt occurred when it hold lock-val after TNS deadlock still
> can occur.

Correct; that's what I meant by "read_lock operations".  This include lock,
trylock, and unlock.

> When will you release out that patch? Since time is tight, so maybe
> I've to fix-up it myself.

I heard from one of our support folks that you were asking through that
channel, so I asked him to go ahead and give you the spinlock sources
directly.  I will be spending time next week syncing up our internal tree
with the public git repository so you'll see it on LKML at that time.

> 1. If we use SPR_INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION it will disable all the
> interrupt which claimed 'CM', is that right? Should we have to same
> its original value and restore it later?

We don't need to save and restore, since INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION is
almost always zero except in very specific situations.

> 2. Should we lock interrupt for the whole operation of
> read_lock()/read_unlock(), or we should leave interrupt critical
> section if it run into  __raw_read_lock_slow() and before have to
> delay_backoff() some time, and re-enter interrupt critical section
> again before TNS?

Correct, the fix only holds the critical section around the tns and the
write-back, not during the delay_backoff().

> Bye the way, other RISC platforms, say ARM and MIPS, use store
> conditional rather that TNS a temp value for lock-val, does Fx have
> similar instructions?

TILEPro does not have anything more than test-and-set; TILE-Gx (the 64-bit
processor) has a full array of atomic instructions.

> Adding that to SPR writes should be fine, but it may cause interrupt
> delay a little more that other platform's read_lock()?

A little, but I think it's in the noise relative to the basic cost of
read_lock in the absence of full-fledged atomic instructions.

> Another question: What NMI in the former mail means?

Non-maskable interrupt, such as performance counter interrupts.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html