From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64313C31E46 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD5A208CA for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2406413AbfFLLae (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:30:34 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:50970 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727352AbfFLLae (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:30:34 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9C428; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 04:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.129] (ostrya.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.129]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C93383F246; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 04:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Add I/O ASID allocator To: Jacob Pan Cc: Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , Robin Murphy , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" References: <20190610184714.6786-1-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <20190610184714.6786-2-jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com> <20190611052626.20bed59a@jacob-builder> <95292b47-4cf4-5fd9-b096-1cb016e2264f@arm.com> <20190611101052.35af46df@jacob-builder> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:30:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190611101052.35af46df@jacob-builder> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/2019 18:10, Jacob Pan wrote: >> The issue is theoretical at the moment because no users do this, but >> I'd be more comfortable taking the xa_lock, which prevents a >> concurrent xa_erase()+free(). (I commented on your v3 but you might >> have missed it) >> > Did you reply to my v3? I did not see it. I only saw your comments about > v3 in your commit message. My fault, I sneaked the comments in a random reply three levels down the thread: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/836caf0d-699e-33ba-5303-b1c9c949c9ca@arm.com/ (Great, linux-iommu is indexed by lore! I won't have to Cc lkml anymore) >>>> + ioasid_data = xa_load(&ioasid_xa, ioasid); >>>> + if (ioasid_data) >>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(ioasid_data->private, data); >>> it is good to publish and have barrier here. But I just wonder even >>> for weakly ordered machine, this pointer update is quite far away >>> from its data update. >> >> I don't know, it could be right before calling ioasid_set_data(): >> >> mydata = kzalloc(sizeof(*mydata)); >> mydata->ops = &my_ops; (1) >> ioasid_set_data(ioasid, mydata); >> ... /* no write barrier here */ >> data->private = mydata; (2) >> >> And then another thread calls ioasid_find(): >> >> mydata = ioasid_find(ioasid); >> if (mydata) >> mydata->ops->do_something(); >> >> On a weakly ordered machine, this thread could observe the pointer >> assignment (2) before the ops assignment (1), and dereference NULL. >> Using rcu_assign_pointer() should fix that >> > I agree it is better to have the barrier. Just thought there is already > a rcu_read_lock() in xa_load() in between. rcu_read_lock() may have > barrier in some case but better not count on it. Yes, and even if rcu_read_lock() provided a barrier I don't think it would be sufficient, because acquire semantics don't guarantee that prior writes appear to happen before the barrier, only the other way round. A lock operation with release semantics, for example spin_unlock(), should work. Thanks, Jean > No issues here. I will > integrate this in the next version. > >> Thanks, >> Jean > > [Jacob Pan] >