Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix memory ordering race in queue_work*()

From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	peterz@infradead.org, jirislaby@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, oneukum@suse.com,
	roman.penyaev@profitbricks.com, asahi@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix memory ordering race in queue_work*()
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 09:43:29 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YvvJMSGLtIZgP/Qd@boqun-archlinux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74559da4-5cd4-7cc4-0303-ab5f6a8b92ae@marcan.st>

On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 01:22:09AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
> On 16/08/2022 23.55, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> It's worth noting that with the spinlock-based implementation (i.e.
> >> prior to e986a0d6cb36) then we would have the same problem on
> >> architectures that implement spinlocks with acquire/release semantics;
> >> accesses from outside of the critical section can drift in and reorder
> >> with each other there, so the conversion looked legitimate to me in
> >> isolation and I vaguely remember going through callers looking for
> >> potential issues. Alas, I obviously missed this case.
> >>
> > 
> > I just to want to mention that although spinlock-based atomic bitops
> > don't provide the full barrier in test_and_set_bit(), but they don't
> > have the problem spotted by Hector, because test_and_set_bit() and
> > clear_bit() sync with each other via locks:
> > 
> > 	test_and_set_bit():
> > 	  lock(..);
> > 	  old = *p; // mask is already set by other test_and_set_bit()
> > 	  *p = old | mask;
> > 	  unlock(...);
> > 				clear_bit():
> > 				  lock(..);
> > 				  *p ~= mask;
> > 				  unlock(..);
> > 
> > so "having a full barrier before test_and_set_bit()" may not be the
> > exact thing we need here, as long as a test_and_set_bit() can sync with
> > a clear_bit() uncondiontally, then the world is safe. For example, we
> > can make test_and_set_bit() RELEASE, and clear_bit() ACQUIRE on ARM64:
> > 
> > 	test_and_set_bit():
> > 	  atomic_long_fetch_or_release(..); // pair with clear_bit()
> > 	  				    // guarantee everything is
> > 					    // observed.
> > 	  			clear_bit():
> > 				  atomic_long_fetch_andnot_acquire(..);
> > 	  
> > , maybe that's somewhat cheaper than a full barrier implementation.
> > 
> > Thoughts? Just to find the exact ordering requirement for bitops.
> 
> It's worth pointing out that the workqueue code does *not* pair
> test_and_set_bit() with clear_bit(). It does an atomic_long_set()
> instead (and then there are explicit barriers around it, which are
> expected to pair with the implicit barrier in test_and_set_bit()). If we
> define test_and_set_bit() to only sync with clear_bit() and not
> necessarily be a true barrier, that breaks the usage of the workqueue code.
> 

Ah, I miss that, but that means the old spinlock-based atomics are
totally broken unless spinlock means full barriers on these archs.

But still, if we define test_and_set_bit() as RELEASE atomic instead of 
a full barrier + atomic, it should work for workqueue, right? Do we
actually need extra ordering here?

	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1); // A
	test_and_set_bit(..); // a full barrier will order A & B
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); // B

That's something I want to figure out.

Regards,
Boqun
> - Hector

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel