linux-kernel - Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061031042121.GB9544@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:51:21 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>, ego@...ibm.com,
	"Benzi Galili (Benzi@...leMP.com)" <benzi@...lemp.com>,
	Alok Kataria <alok.kataria@...softinc.com>, shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] [patch] mm: Slab - Eliminate lock_cpu_hotplug from slab

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 07:51:40PM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> kmem_cache_shrink:
> >From what I can gather by looking at the cpu hotplug code, disabling 
> preemption before iterating over cpu_online_map ensures that a
> cpu won't disappear from the bitmask (system).  But it does not ensure that a
> cpu won't come up right? (I see stop_machine usage in the cpu_down path, but
> not in the cpu_up path). But then on closer look I see that on_each_cpu
> uses call_lock to protect the cpu_online_map against cpu_online events.
> So, yes we don't need to take the cache_chain_sem here.

Yes thats what I thought.

> kmem_cache_destroy:
> We still need to stay serialized against cpu online here.  I guess
> you already know why :)
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/3/23/80

sure!

> Maybe I am missing something, but what prevents someone from reading the 
> wrong tsk->cpus_allowed at (A) below?
> 
> static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> 	...
> 	...
>         set_cpus_allowed(current, tmp);
> 					----- (A)


lock_cpu_hotplug() in sched_getaffinity was supposed to guard from
reading the wrong value you point out. But with recent churn of cpu hotplug 
locking, this is broken now.

Ideally, lock_cpu_hotplug() should have taken something equivalent to 
cpu_add_remove_lock (breaking cpufreq in the course :), but moving 
mutex_lock(&cpu_bitmask_lock) few lines above (before set_cpus_allowed) should 
also work in this case.

Alternately, taking a per-subsystem lock in DOWN_PREPARE/LOCK_ACQUIRE 
notifications, which is used by sched_getaffinity also, would work 
(as you note below). 

>         mutex_lock(&cpu_bitmask_lock);
>         p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, NULL, cpu);
> 	...
> }
> 
> 
> > 
> > If we are discarding this whole lock_cpu_hotplug(), then IMO, we should
> > use LOCK_ACQUIRE/RELEASE, where ACQUIRE notification is sent *before*
> > messing with tsk->cpus_allowed and RELEASE notification sent *after*
> > restoring tsk->cpus_allowed (something like below):
> > 
> > @@ -186,13 +186,14 @@ int cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> >         int err = 0;
> > 
> > -       mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
> > +       blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE,
> > +                                               (void *)(long)cpu);
> >         if (cpu_hotplug_disabled)
> >                 err = -EBUSY;
> >         else
> >                 err = _cpu_down(cpu);
> > -
> > -       mutex_unlock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
> > +       blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_RELEASE,
> > +                                               (void *)(long)cpu);
> >         return err;
> >  }
> > 
> 
> But, since we send CPU_DOWN_PREPARE at _cpu_down before set_cpus_allowed(),
> is it not possible to take the per scheduler subsystem lock at DOWN_PREPARE
> and serialize sched_getaffinity with the same per scheduler subsys lock?

CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is a good enough time to acquire the (scheduler
subsystem) lock. But I am more concerned about when we release that lock. 
Releasing at CPU_DEAD/CPU_DOWN_FAILED is too early, since the tasks's 
cpus_allowed mask would not have been restored by then. Thats why having a 
separate notification to release (and acquire) the lock would make more sense I 
thought.

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/