From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"2nddept-manager@sdl.hitachi.co.jp"
<2nddept-manager@sdl.hitachi.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: stop machine text poke should issue sync core
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:27:54 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D6F26DA.5040403@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110228152405.GA7064@Krystal>
(2011/03/01 0:24), Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Intel Archiecture Software Developer's Manual section 7.1.3 specifies that a
> core serializing instruction such as "cpuid" should be executed on _each_ core
> before the new instruction is made visible.
>
> Failure to do so can lead to unspecified behavior (Intel XMC erratas include
> General Protection Fault in the list), so we should avoid this at all cost.
>
> This problem can affect modified code executed by interrupt handlers after
> interrupt are re-enabled at the end of stop_machine, because no core serializing
> instruction is executed between the code modification and the moment interrupts
> are reenabled.
>
> Because stop_machine_text_poke performs the text modification from the first CPU
> decrementing stop_machine_first, modified code executed in thread context is
> also affected by this problem. To explain why, we have to split the CPUs in two
> categories: the CPU that initiates the text modification (calls text_poke_smp)
> and all the others. The scheduler, executed on all other CPUs after
> stop_machine, issues an "iret" core serializing instruction, and therefore
> handles core serialization for all these CPUs. However, the text modification
> initiator can continue its execution on the same thread and access the modified
> text without any scheduler call. Given that the CPU that initiates the code
> modification is not guaranteed to be the one actually performing the code
> modification, it falls into the XMC errata.
Thanks Mathieu!
It seems reasonable change. At least I'm OK :)
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> CC: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
> CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> CC: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -612,6 +612,12 @@ static int __kprobes stop_machine_text_p
>
> flush_icache_range((unsigned long)tpp->addr,
> (unsigned long)tpp->addr + tpp->len);
> + /*
> + * Intel Archiecture Software Developer's Manual section 7.1.3 specifies
> + * that a core serializing instruction such as "cpuid" should be
> + * executed on _each_ core before the new instruction is made visible.
> + */
> + sync_core();
> return 0;
> }
>
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
2nd Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-03 5:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-28 15:24 [RFC PATCH] x86: stop machine text poke should issue sync core Mathieu Desnoyers
2011-03-03 5:27 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2011-03-03 6:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-03-03 7:02 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2011-03-03 15:53 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D6F26DA.5040403@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=2nddept-manager@sdl.hitachi.co.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox