| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090102185543.GE6842@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:55:43 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] kernel/rcu: add kfree_rcu
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:25:58PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Based on the idea from Lai Jiangshan:
>
> There are 23 instances where the rcu callback just does
>
> kfree(containerof(rcu_member,struct whatever_struct,head));
>
> The 23 instances exist because there are 23 'struct whatever_struct' with
> their individual rcu_member.
>
> The attached patch creates a generic kfree_rcu function that removes the need
> for these 23 helpers: The offset from the container struct to the rcu member
> is calculated at compile time and stored in head->func instead of the
> function pointer.
OK, these seem to me to avoid Nick Piggin's vfree() question in response
to a roughly similar posting from Lai Jiangshan on November 18th
(http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/18/83).
> Effect on .text: (x86_64)
> +23 bytes in rcutree.c
> - 9 bytes in ipc/sem.c
>
> Depending on the number of call_rcu instances in the .config, adding
> kfree_rcu should save between 100 and 200 bytes in .text.
>
> What do you think?
I am in favor, given changes noted below. This is a much nicer way to
implement some function in the original RCU patch for Linux.
> Is the interface ok? Incorrect use should generate compile time errors.
> Is it ok to use IS_ERR(p)?
I would suggest instead using the bottom bit to differentiate between
these two cases, especially given that your approach makes it impossible
for callback processing to notice a NULL function pointer. In addition,
this approach would allow different types of allocators to be specified
should this later prove to be helpful. You should not have to shift the
offset because the rcu_head offset should always be a multiple of four
(or eight on 64-bit architectures).
And we really are running into bugs that are detected by RCU's seeing a
null function pointer in the rcu_head structure at callback-invocation
time. So, whatever encoding you choose, please leave a function-pointer
value of zero as an invalid value!
> And: How many seperate patches should I create?
> I would propose 24 patches: one with the interface, 23 that
> replace the individual callbacks.
I defer to the various maintainers on this one. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ipc/sem.c | 10 ++--------
> kernel/rcuclassic.c | 2 +-
> kernel/rcupreempt.c | 2 +-
> kernel/rcutree.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 1168fbc..d120014 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -269,6 +269,29 @@ extern void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head,
> extern void call_rcu_bh(struct rcu_head *head,
> void (*func)(struct rcu_head *head));
>
> +/**
> + * kfree_rcu - kfree after a grace period
> + * @ptr: pointer to kfree
> + * @rcu_member: name of the struct rcu_head member.
> + *
> + * Many rcu callbacks just call kfree() on the base structure. This helper
> + * function calls kfree internally. The rcu_head structure must be embedded
> + * in the to be freed structure.
> + */
> +
> +static inline void __kfree_rcu(void *prcu, unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + void (*pfnc)(struct rcu_head *head) = (void (*)(struct rcu_head *head))offset;
> +
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(-offset));
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!IS_ERR(pfnc));
This allows us to drop the above check in favor of something like the
following above (though a symbolic value in place of 0x1 would be nice):
void (*pfnc)(struct rcu_head *head) = (void (*)(struct rcu_head *head))(offset | 0x1);
> + call_rcu(prcu, pfnc);
> +}
> +
> +#define kfree_rcu(pobj, entry) \
> + __kfree_rcu(&((pobj)->entry), -offsetof(typeof(*(pobj)), entry))
> +
> /* Exported common interfaces */
> extern void synchronize_rcu(void);
> extern void rcu_barrier(void);
> @@ -279,4 +302,14 @@ extern void rcu_barrier_sched(void);
> extern void rcu_init(void);
> extern int rcu_needs_cpu(int cpu);
>
> +/* helper functions */
> +static inline void rcu_docallback(struct rcu_head *head)
> +{
Experience indicates that we should have some sort of WARN_ON() in
the case of a NULL rcu_head, either here or where this is called. :-/
> + if (IS_ERR(head->func)) {
And in this "if" statement, just check the bottom bit.
> + kfree(((char *)head) + (unsigned long)head->func);
> + } else {
> + head->func(head);
> + }
> +}
> +
> #endif /* __LINUX_RCUPDATE_H */
> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
> index 0821224..4a68cf2 100644
> --- a/ipc/sem.c
> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> @@ -504,12 +504,6 @@ static int count_semzcnt (struct sem_array * sma, ushort semnum)
> return semzcnt;
> }
>
> -static void free_un(struct rcu_head *head)
> -{
> - struct sem_undo *un = container_of(head, struct sem_undo, rcu);
> - kfree(un);
> -}
> -
> /* Free a semaphore set. freeary() is called with sem_ids.rw_mutex locked
> * as a writer and the spinlock for this semaphore set hold. sem_ids.rw_mutex
> * remains locked on exit.
> @@ -528,7 +522,7 @@ static void freeary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct kern_ipc_perm *ipcp)
> un->semid = -1;
> list_del_rcu(&un->list_proc);
> spin_unlock(&un->ulp->lock);
> - call_rcu(&un->rcu, free_un);
> + kfree_rcu(un, rcu);
This -is- nice! Short and sweet!!!
> }
>
> /* Wake up all pending processes and let them fail with EIDRM. */
> @@ -1347,7 +1341,7 @@ void exit_sem(struct task_struct *tsk)
> update_queue(sma);
> sem_unlock(sma);
>
> - call_rcu(&un->rcu, free_un);
> + kfree_rcu(un, rcu);
> }
> kfree(ulp);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcuclassic.c b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> index e503a00..b2f97d2 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcuclassic.c
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> prefetch(next);
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
> list = next;
> if (++count >= rdp->blimit)
> break;
> diff --git a/kernel/rcupreempt.c b/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> index 0498265..8440dac 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcupreempt.c
> @@ -1110,7 +1110,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->lock, flags);
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
> list = next;
> RCU_TRACE_ME(rcupreempt_trace_invoke);
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index a342b03..29c88ce 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -901,7 +901,7 @@ static void rcu_do_batch(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> while (list) {
> next = list->next;
> prefetch(next);
> - list->func(list);
> + rcu_docallback(list);
Good, you got all three of them! ;-)
> list = next;
> if (++count >= rdp->blimit)
> break;
> --
> 1.6.0.6
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists