linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and write operations

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]

Message-ID: <CAEXW_YScMp3LHd5kUzsi6TcneD8js_QLYpGjEWCSX4ymBcUZ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:00:19 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@...zon.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and
 write operations

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:42 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 09:17:11AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > As for "task_struct's rcu_read_lock_nesting". Will it be enough just
> > > > > have a look at preempt_count of current process? If we have for example
> > > > > nested rcu_read_locks:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > rcu_read_lock()
> > > > >     rcu_read_lock()
> > > > >         rcu_read_lock()
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > the counter would be 3.
> > > >
> > > > No, because preempt_count is not incremented during rcu_read_lock(). RCU
> > > > reader sections can be preempted, they just cannot goto sleep in a reader
> > > > section (unless the kernel is RT).
> > >
> > > You are both right.
> > >
> > > Vlad is correct for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n and CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
> > > and Joel is correct otherwise, give or take the possibility of other
> > > late-breaking corner cases.  ;-)
> >
> > Oh yes, but even for PREEMPT=n, rcu_read_lock() is just a NOOP for
> > that configuration and doesn't really mess around with preempt_count
> > if I recall :-D. (doesn't need to mess with preempt_count because
> > being in kernel mode is non-preemptible for PREEMPT=n anyway).
>
> For PREEMPT=n, rcu_read_lock() is preempt_disable(), see the code
> in include/linux/rcupdate.h.  ;-)

Paul....

;-) ;-)

thanks,

 - Joel