linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu

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, 4 Aug 2014 16:56:48 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Add call_rcu_tasks()

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:25:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:50:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, I will bite...
> > 
> > What kinds of tasks are on a runqueue, but neither ->on_cpu nor
> > PREEMPT_ACTIVE?
> 
> Userspace tasks, they don't necessarily get PREEMPT_ACTIVE when
> preempted. Now obviously you're not _that_ interested in userspace tasks
> for this, so that might be ok.
> 
> But the main point was, you cannot use ->on_cpu or PREEMPT_ACTIVE
> without holding rq->lock.

Hmm, maybe you can, we have the context switch in between setting
->on_cpu and clearing PREEMPT_ACTIVE and vice-versa.

The context switch (obviously) provides a full barrier, so we might be
able to -- with careful consideration -- read these two separate values
and construct something usable from them.

Something like:

	task_preempt_count(tsk) & PREEMPT_ACTIVE
	smp_rmb();
	tsk->on_cpu

And because we set PREEMPT_ACTIVE before clearing on_cpu, this should
race the right way (err towards the inclusive side).

Obviously that wants a big fat comment...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped