linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read

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: <d120d5000709191429n29f5dc78g2746de3ee4e9ca81@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:29:09 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/6] lockdep: validate rcu_dereference() vs rcu_read_lock()

On 9/19/07, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:41:04 -0400 "Dmitry Torokhov"
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > If the IRQ handler does rcu_read_lock(),unlock() and the i8042_stop()
> > > function does sync_rcu() instead of _sched(), it should be good again.
> > > It will not affect anything else than the task that calls _stop(). And
> > > even there the only change is that the sleep might be a tad longer.
> >
> > And the IRQ handler needs to do some extra job... Anyway, it looks -rt
> > breaks synchronize_sched() and needs to have it fixed:
> >
> > "/**
> >  * synchronize_sched - block until all CPUs have exited any non-preemptive
> >  * kernel code sequences.
> >  *
> >  * This means that all preempt_disable code sequences, including NMI and
> >  * hardware-interrupt handlers, in progress on entry will have completed
> >  * before this primitive returns."
>
> That still does as it says in -rt. Its just that the interrupt handler
> will be preemptible so the guarantees it gives are useless.

Please note "... including NMI and hardware-interrupt handlers ..."

>
> > > I find it curious that a driver that is 'low performant' and does not
> > > suffer lock contention pioneers locking schemes. I agree with
> > > optimizing, but this is not the place to push the envelope.
> >
> > Please realize that evey microsecond wasted on a 'low performant'
> > driver is taken from high performers and if we can help it why
> > shouldn't we?
>
> sure, but the cache eviction caused by running the driver will have
> more impact than the added rcu_read_{,un}lock() calls.

Are you saying that adding rcu_read_{,un}lock() will help with cache
eviction? How?

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/