linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking

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, 2 Mar 2015 13:37:18 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 09:46:45PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> > Currently the RCU usage in module is an inconsistent mess of RCU and
> > RCU-sched, this is broken for CONFIG_PREEMPT where synchronize_rcu()
> > does not imply synchronize_sched().
> 
> Huh?  It's not "an inconsistent mess".  They're all synchronize_rcu(),
> except one.

Uhm, most of them use preempt_disable(), which is RCU-sched, not RCU.

The only RCU user I found was the bug-list thing.

What other RCU users are there?

> That said, I love the new checks, thanks!
> 
> > +static inline void module_assert_mutex(void)
> > +{
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&module_mutex);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void module_assert_mutex_or_preempt(void)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +	int rcu_held = rcu_read_lock_sched_held();
> > +	int mutex_held = 1;
> > +
> > +	if (debug_locks)
> > +		mutex_held = lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex);
> > +
> > +	WARN_ON(!rcu_held && !mutex_held);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> 
> Minor nitpick: I generally avoid static inline in C files (unless
> functions are unused under some config options, which these aren't).
> 
> In general, they mess up future cleanups, as gcc doesn't warn about
> unused functions.

Ah, sure. And I suppose gcc will not emit code for empty static
functions anyhow - which is the reason I stuck the inline on, to avoid
it generating code for the !LOCKDEP case.
--
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/