linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:58:28 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] introduce atomic_dec_and_lock_irqsave()

On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:25:07PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> 
> > > > uidhash_lock can be taken from irq context. For example, delayed_put_task_struct()
> > > > does __put_task_struct()->free_uid().
> > > 
> > > AFAICT it's called via rcu, does that mean anything released via rcu has 
> > > to be protected against interrupts?
> > 
> > No. You need protection only if you have are using some 
> > data that can also be used by the RCU callback. For example,
> > if your RCU callback just calls kfree(), you don't have to 
> > do a spin_lock_bh().
> 
> In this case kfree() does its own interrupt synchronization. I didn't 
> realize before that rcu had this (IMO serious) limitation. I think there 
> should be two call_rcu() variants, one that queues the callback in a soft 
> irq and a second which queues it in a thread context.

How about just using synchronize_rcu() in the second situation?
This primitive blocks until the grace period completes, allowing you to
do the remaining processing in thread context.  As a bonus, RCU code
that uses synchronize_rcu() is usually quite a bit simpler than code
using call_rcu().

Using synchronize_rcu():

	list_del_rcu(p);
	synchronize_rcu();
	kfree(p);

Using call_rcu():

	static void rcu_callback_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
	{
		struct foo *p = container_of(rcu, struct foo, rcu);

		kfree(p);
	}

	list_del_rcu(p);
	call_rcu(&p->rcu, rcu_callback_func);

Furthermore, the call_rcu() approach requires a struct rcu_head somewhere
in the data structure, so use of synchronize_rcu() saves a bit of memory,
as well.

But if you have a situation where neither synchronize_srcu() nor
call_rcu() is working out for you, let's hear it!

						Thanx, Paul
-
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/