linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section?

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, 9 Sep 2013 14:45:49 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical
 section?

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:39:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:13:31 +0200
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > In any case the preempt_disable/enable pair there is just plain wrong as
> > > Eric pointed out.
> > 
> > Check this:
> > 
> > 34240697d619c439c55f21989680024dcb604aab "rcu: Disable preemption in rcu_is_cpu_idle()"
> 
> 
> Ug, and that patch does nothing to fix the bug that it reported!
> 
>     1.  Task A on CPU 1 enters rcu_is_cpu_idle() and picks up the
>     pointer to CPU 1's per-CPU variables.
>     
>     2.  Task B preempts Task A and starts running on CPU 1.
> 
> Let's say that B preempts Task A here:
> 
>        preempt_disable();
>        ret = (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks).dynticks) &  0x1) == 0;
>        preempt_enable();
>  <preempt>
>        return ret;
> 
>     
>     3.  Task A migrates to CPU 2.
>     
>     4.  Task B blocks, leaving CPU 1 idle.
>     
>     5.  Task A continues execution on CPU 2, accessing CPU 1's
>     dyntick-idle information using the pointer fetched in step 1 above,
>     and finds that CPU 1 is idle.
> 
> Yeah, and Task A is using the "ret" from CPU 1!
>     
>     6.  Task A therefore incorrectly concludes that it is executing in
>         an extended quiescent state, possibly issuing a spurious splat.
>     
>     Therefore, this commit disables preemption within the
>     rcu_is_cpu_idle() function.
> 
> Where this commit is totally bogus. Sorry, but it is.
> 
> This just proves that the caller of rcu_is_cpu_idle() must disable
> preemption itself for the entire time that it needs to use the result
> of rcu_is_cpu_idle().

Sorry, I don't understand your point here. What's wrong with checking the
ret from another CPU?
--
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/