Re: alpha: potential race around hae_cache in RESTORE_ALL

[Ivan Kokshaysky]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 01:46:24PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> AFAICS, we have 3 variants:
> 	1) alpha_mv.hae_register == &alpha_mv.hae_cache; all that code
> becomes a no-op.
> 	2) UP boxen with hae_register pointing someplace real; we save
> HAE in SAVE_ALL, restore it in RESTORE_ALL and disable interrupts around
> the updates of hae_cache/*hae_register to keep them in sync.  readl()
> et.al. set HAE, then do memory access and rely on not giving CPU up between
> these moments.  Since alpha doesn't do PREEMPT, we are OK (otherwise we'd
> needed to disable preempt in those places; also not a big deal)
> 	3) SMP t2 boxen; we protect the entire sequence from setting HAE to
> memory access with spinlock and with disabling interrupts.  We don't rely on
> interrupts not modifying the damn thing, but we *do* rely on other CPU not
> messing with HAE on syscall paths outside of spinlock-protected area.  And
> we have RESTORE_ALL hit us on all exits to userland, interrupt, trap and
> syscall alike.
> 
> 	Looks like (3) has always been broken...

Ah, agreed with all of the above.

Looks like we need to drop HAE bits from SAVE_ALL/RESTORE_ALL, which
benefits (1) and automatically fixes (3), and do the entire IO sequences
in (2) with disabled interrupts (if HAE is involved).
The latter includes apecs, lca and jensen.

Ivan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/