From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Additional compiler barrier required in sched_preempt_enable_no_resched?
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 16:58:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160513145814.GS3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <573576B3.50908@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:39:47PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I came across a piece of engineering code that looked like:
>
> preempt_disable();
> /* --cut, lots of code-- */
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> put_user()
> preempt_disable();
>
> (If you wish to seriously question the usage of the preempt API in this
> manner, I unfortunately have no comment since I didn't write the code.)
I'm with Thomas here, that's broken and should not be done.
> This particular block of code was causing lockups and crashes on a certain
> ARM64 device. The generated assembly revealed that the compiler was simply
> optimizing out the increment and decrement of the preempt count, allowing
> put_user to run without preemption enabled, causing all sorts of badness.
> Since put_user doesn't actually access the preempt count and translates to
> just a few instructions without any branching, I suppose that the compiler
> figured it was OK to optimize.
>
> The immediate solution is to add a compiler barrier to the code above, but
> should sched_preempt_enable_no_resched have an additional compiler barrier
> after (has one before already) the preempt-count decrement to prevent this
> sort of thing?
I think the below would be sufficient; IIRC the compiler may not combine
or elide volatile operations.
---
include/asm-generic/preempt.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
index 5d8ffa3e6f8c..c1cde3577551 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
static __always_inline int preempt_count(void)
{
- return current_thread_info()->preempt_count;
+ return READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt_count);
}
-static __always_inline int *preempt_count_ptr(void)
+static __always_inline volatile int *preempt_count_ptr(void)
{
return ¤t_thread_info()->preempt_count;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-13 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-13 6:39 Vikram Mulukutla
2016-05-13 14:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-05-13 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-05-13 22:44 ` Vikram Mulukutla
2016-05-14 15:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-05-14 18:28 ` Vikram Mulukutla
2016-05-16 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-16 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-16 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-17 14:21 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/preempt: Fix preempt_count manipulations tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160513145814.GS3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markivx@codeaurora.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®