linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: Fix RCU correctness warning in cfq_init

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:42:08 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-cgroup: Fix RCU correctness warning in
	cfq_init_queue()

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:45:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:39:20AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 07:06:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:33:46AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> With RCU correctness on, We see following warning. This patch fixes it.
> > > > >>>>> This is in initialization code, so that there cannot be any concurrent
> > > > >>>>> updates, correct?  If so, looks good.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> I think theoritically two instances of cfq_init_queue() can be running
> > > > >>>> in parallel (for two different devices), and they both can call
> > > > >>>> blkiocg_add_blkio_group(). But then we use a spin lock to protect
> > > > >>>> blkio_cgroup.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&blkcg->lock, flags);
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So I guess two parallel updates should be fine.
> > > > >>> OK, in that case, would it be possible add this spinlock to the condition
> > > > >>> checked by css_id()'s rcu_dereference_check()?
> > > > >> Hi Paul,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think adding these spinlock to condition checked might become little
> > > > >> messy. And the reason being that this lock is subsystem (controller)
> > > > >> specific and maintained by controller. Now if any controller implements
> > > > >> a lock and we add that lock in css_id() rcu_dereference_check(), it will
> > > > >> look ugly.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So probably a better way is to make sure that css_id() is always called
> > > > >> under rcu read lock so that we don't hit this warning?
> > > > > 
> > > > > As long as holding rcu_read_lock() prevents css_id() from the usual
> > > > > problems such as access memory that was concurrently freed, yes.
> > > > 
> > > > blkiocg_add_blkio_group() also calls cgroup_path(), which also needs to
> > > > be called within rcu_read_lock, so I think Vivek's patch is better than
> > > > the one you posted in another mail thread.
> > > 
> > > My apologies, Vivek!  I lost track of your patch.  I have now replaced
> > > my patch with yours.
> > 
> > Thanks Paul.
> > 
> > I sent this patch to Jens also, thinking he will apply to his tree. Looks
> > like he has not applied it yet though.
> > 
> > Jens, is it ok if this patch gets merged through paul's tree or should it
> > go through blk tree?
> 
> I am happy for it to go either way, so just let me know!

I am also happy to go either way. I guess you can go ahead with pulling it in.

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