linux-kernel - Re: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT

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:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:02:42 -0600
From:   Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT

On 03/09/2018 11:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:04:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> +void swake_add_all_wq(struct swait_queue_head *q, struct wake_q_head *wq)
>>   {
>>   	struct swait_queue *curr;
>>   
>>   	while (!list_empty(&q->task_list)) {
>>   
>>   		curr = list_first_entry(&q->task_list, typeof(*curr),
>>   					task_list);
>>   		list_del_init(&curr->task_list);
>> +		wake_q_add(wq, curr->task);
>>   	}
>>   }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_add_all_wq);
>>   
>>   void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>>   {
>> @@ -66,25 +62,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up);
>>    */
>>   void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q)
>>   {
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +	DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wq);
>>   
>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
>> +	swake_add_all_wq(q, &wq);
>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
>>   
>> +	wake_up_q(&wq);
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(swake_up_all);
> This is fundamentally wrong. The whole point of wake_up_all() is that
> _all_ is unbounded and should not ever land in a single critical
> section, be it IRQ or PREEMPT disabled. The above does both.

It seems to me to be better than what was there, certainly more efficient.

And if I understand this correctly it is unbounded when !RT, but it is 
bounded
on RT.

And I'm biased, because it should fix my problem :).

> Yes, wake_up_all() is crap, it is also fundamentally incompatible with
> in-*irq usage. Nothing to be done about that.
>
> So NAK on this.

So what would you suggest?  At this point getting rid of all the users of
wake_up_all() from interrupt context is not really an option, though as
an eventual goal it would be good.

-corey