Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()

From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
	Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp: introduce kick_active_cpus_sync()
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:08:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180404090831.62dtaqo4ojrmozj7@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180404033625.gkn4q7kb2xf6d6mo@yury-thinkpad>

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:36:25AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 02:11:08PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > @@ -840,8 +861,10 @@ el0_svc:
> > >  	mov	wsc_nr, #__NR_syscalls
> > >  el0_svc_naked:					// compat entry point
> > >  	stp	x0, xscno, [sp, #S_ORIG_X0]	// save the original x0 and syscall number
> > > +	isb_if_eqs
> > >  	enable_dbg_and_irq
> > > -	ct_user_exit 1
> > > +	ct_user_exit
> > 
> > I don't think this is safe. here we issue the ISB *before* exiting a
> > quiesecent state, so I think we can race with another CPU that calls
> > kick_all_active_cpus_sync, e.g.
> > 
> > 	CPU0				CPU1
> > 
> > 	ISB
> > 					patch_some_text()
> > 					kick_all_active_cpus_sync()
> > 	ct_user_exit
> > 
> > 	// not synchronized!
> > 	use_of_patched_text()
> > 
> > ... and therefore the ISB has no effect, which could be disasterous.
> > 
> > I believe we need the ISB *after* we transition into a non-quiescent
> > state, so that we can't possibly miss a context synchronization event.
>  
> I decided to put isb() in entry because there's a chance that there will
> be patched code prior to exiting a quiescent state.

If we do patch entry text, then I think we have no option but to use
kick_all_active_cpus_sync(), or we risk races similar to the above.

> But after some headscratching, I think it's safe. I'll do like you
> suggested here.

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Mark.