Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Commit f3ced3c5 authored by Emilio G. Cota's avatar Emilio G. Cota Committed by Richard Henderson
Browse files

tcg: consistently access cpu->tb_jmp_cache atomically


Some code paths can lead to atomic accesses racing with memset()
on cpu->tb_jmp_cache, which can result in torn reads/writes
and is undefined behaviour in C11.

These torn accesses are unlikely to show up as bugs, but from code
inspection they seem possible. For example, tb_phys_invalidate does:
    /* remove the TB from the hash list */
    h = tb_jmp_cache_hash_func(tb->pc);
    CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
        if (atomic_read(&cpu->tb_jmp_cache[h]) == tb) {
            atomic_set(&cpu->tb_jmp_cache[h], NULL);
        }
    }
Here atomic_set might race with a concurrent memset (such as the
ones scheduled via "unsafe" async work, e.g. tlb_flush_page) and
therefore we might end up with a torn pointer (or who knows what,
because we are under undefined behaviour).

This patch converts parallel accesses to cpu->tb_jmp_cache to use
atomic primitives, thereby bringing these accesses back to defined
behaviour. The price to pay is to potentially execute more instructions
when clearing cpu->tb_jmp_cache, but given how infrequently they happen
and the small size of the cache, the performance impact I have measured
is within noise range when booting debian-arm.

Note that under "safe async" work (e.g. do_tb_flush) we could use memset
because no other vcpus are running. However I'm keeping these accesses
atomic as well to keep things simple and to avoid confusing analysis
tools such as ThreadSanitizer.

Reviewed-by: default avatarPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarRichard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarEmilio G. Cota <cota@braap.org>
Message-Id: <1497486973-25845-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarRichard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
parent 53f6672b
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment