[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: alpha: potential race around hae_cache in RESTORE_ALL
    On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:46:24PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
    > AFAICS, we have 3 variants:
    > 1) alpha_mv.hae_register == &alpha_mv.hae_cache; all that code
    > becomes a no-op.
    > 2) UP boxen with hae_register pointing someplace real; we save
    > HAE in SAVE_ALL, restore it in RESTORE_ALL and disable interrupts around
    > the updates of hae_cache/*hae_register to keep them in sync. readl()
    > set HAE, then do memory access and rely on not giving CPU up between
    > these moments. Since alpha doesn't do PREEMPT, we are OK (otherwise we'd
    > needed to disable preempt in those places; also not a big deal)
    > 3) SMP t2 boxen; we protect the entire sequence from setting HAE to
    > memory access with spinlock and with disabling interrupts. We don't rely on
    > interrupts not modifying the damn thing, but we *do* rely on other CPU not
    > messing with HAE on syscall paths outside of spinlock-protected area. And
    > we have RESTORE_ALL hit us on all exits to userland, interrupt, trap and
    > syscall alike.
    > Looks like (3) has always been broken...

    Ah, agreed with all of the above.

    Looks like we need to drop HAE bits from SAVE_ALL/RESTORE_ALL, which
    benefits (1) and automatically fixes (3), and do the entire IO sequences
    in (2) with disabled interrupts (if HAE is involved).
    The latter includes apecs, lca and jensen.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-27 20:11    [W:0.021 / U:9.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site