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:	Thu, 08 Aug 2013 09:17:12 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>
CC:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] rcu: Ensure rcu read site is deadlock-immunity

On 08/08/2013 03:29 AM, Carsten Emde wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
>>> Although all articles declare that rcu read site is deadlock-immunity.
>>> It is not true for rcu-preempt, it will be deadlock if rcu read site
>>> overlaps with scheduler lock.
>>
>> The real rule is that if the scheduler does its outermost rcu_read_unlock()
>> with one of those locks held, it has to have avoided enabling preemption
>> through the entire RCU read-side critical section.
>>
>> That said, avoiding the need for this rule would be a good thing.
>>
>> How did you test this?  The rcutorture tests will not exercise this.
>> (Intentionally so, given that it can deadlock!)
>>
>>> ec433f0c, 10f39bb1 and 016a8d5b just partially solve it. But rcu read site
>>> is still not deadlock-immunity. And the problem described in 016a8d5b
>>> is still existed(rcu_read_unlock_special() calls wake_up).
>>>
>>> The problem is fixed in patch5.
>>
>> This is going to require some serious review and testing.  One requirement
>> is that RCU priority boosting not persist significantly beyond the
>> re-enabling of interrupts associated with the irq-disabled lock.  To do
>> otherwise breaks RCU priority boosting.  At first glance, the added
>> set_need_resched() might handle this, but that is part of the review
>> and testing required.
>>
>> Steven, would you and Carsten be willing to try this and see if it
>> helps with the issues you are seeing in -rt?  (My guess is "no", since
>> a deadlock would block forever rather than waking up after a couple
>> thousand seconds, but worth a try.)
> Your guess was correct, applying this patch doesn't heal the NO_HZ_FULL+PREEMPT_RT_FULL 3.10.4 based system; it still is hanging at -> synchronize_rcu -> wait_rcu_gp.
> 
>     -Carsten.
> 

I didn't find the problem you reported, could you give me a url?

Thanx,
Lai
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists