From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f198.google.com (mail-pg1-f198.google.com [209.85.215.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE158E0001 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:00:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg1-f198.google.com with SMTP id p4so7128193pgj.21 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 02:00:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si10321156pfu.270.2018.12.10.02.00.03 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 02:00:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:59:55 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation Message-ID: <20181210095955.GI5289@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20181204121805.4621-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181204121805.4621-3-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181206094451.GC13538@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Igor Stoppa Cc: Andy Lutomirski , linux-arch , linux-s390 , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , Igor Stoppa , Nadav Amit , Dave Hansen , linux-integrity , Kernel Hardening , Linux-MM , LKML On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:32:21AM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote: > > > On 06/12/2018 11:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 03:13:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > > + if (op == WR_MEMCPY) > > > > + memcpy((void *)wr_poking_addr, (void *)src, len); > > > > + else if (op == WR_MEMSET) > > > > + memset((u8 *)wr_poking_addr, (u8)src, len); > > > > + else if (op == WR_RCU_ASSIGN_PTR) > > > > + /* generic version of rcu_assign_pointer */ > > > > + smp_store_release((void **)wr_poking_addr, > > > > + RCU_INITIALIZER((void **)src)); > > > > + kasan_enable_current(); > > > > > > Hmm. I suspect this will explode quite badly on sane architectures > > > like s390. (In my book, despite how weird s390 is, it has a vastly > > > nicer model of "user" memory than any other architecture I know > > > of...). I think you should use copy_to_user(), etc, instead. I'm not > > > entirely sure what the best smp_store_release() replacement is. > > > Making this change may also mean you can get rid of the > > > kasan_disable_current(). > > > > If you make the MEMCPY one guarantee single-copy atomicity for native > > words then you're basically done. > > > > smp_store_release() can be implemented with: > > > > smp_mb(); > > WRITE_ONCE(); > > > > So if we make MEMCPY provide the WRITE_ONCE(), all we need is that > > barrier, which we can easily place at the call site and not overly > > complicate our interface with this. > > Ok, so the 3rd case (WR_RCU_ASSIGN_PTR) could be handled outside of this > function. > But, since now memcpy() will be replaced by copy_to_user(), can I assume > that also copy_to_user() will be atomic, if the destination is properly > aligned? On x86_64 it seems yes, however it's not clear to me if this is the > outcome of an optimization or if I can expect it to be always true. This would be a new contraint; one that needs to be documented and verified by the various arch maintainers as they enable this feature on their platform.