lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] random: use correct memory barriers for crng_node_pool
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:59:31AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:42:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:51:36AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 04:26:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But this reasoning could apply to any data structure that contains
> > > > > a spin lock, in particular ones that are dereferenced through RCU.
> > > >
> > > > I lost you on this one. What is special about a spin lock?
> > >
> > > I don't know, that was Eric's concern. He is inferring that
> > > spin locks through lockdep debugging may trigger dependencies
> > > that require smp_load_acquire.
> > >
> > > Anyway, my point is if it applies to crng_node_pool then it
> > > would equally apply to RCU in general.
> >
> > Referring to the patch you call out below...
> >
> > Huh. The old cmpxchg() primitive is fully ordered, so the old mb()
> > preceding it must have been for correctly interacting with hardware on
> > !SMP systems. If that is the case, then the use of cmpxchg_release()
> > is incorrect. This is not the purview of the memory model, but rather
> > of device-driver semantics. Or does crng not (or no longer, as the case
> > might be) interact with hardware RNGs?
>
> No hardware involved here. The mb() is just unnecessary, as I noted in my patch
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200916233042.51634-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/.
>
> > What prevents either the old or the new code from kfree()ing the old
> > state out from under another CPU that just now picked up a pointer to the
> > old state? The combination of cmpxchg_release() and smp_load_acquire()
> > won't do anything to prevent this from happening. This is after all not
> > a memory-ordering issue, but instead an object-lifetime issue. But maybe
> > you have a lock or something that provides the needed protection. I don't
> > see how this can be the case and still require the cmpxchg_release()
> > and smp_load_acquire(), but perhaps this is a failure of imagination on
> > my part.
>
> crng_node_pool is initialized only once, and never freed.

Thank you on both counts!

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-22 22:33    [W:0.042 / U:29.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site