linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] v3 RCU implementation with fast grace periods

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: <20090421230759.GO6642@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:07:59 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	r000n@...0n.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] v3 RCU implementation with fast grace periods

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 05:11:58PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:10:35AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > 
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > > > +void synchronize_rcu_fgp(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&rcu_fgp_mutex);
> > > > +	
> > > > +	/* CPUs must see earlier change before parity flip. */
> > > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Hrm, my original comment about missing smp_mb() here still applies, I
> > > don't think we have come to an agreement yet.
> > 
> > My argument is that smp_call_function() must necessarily contain a
> > full memory barrier, otherwise it cannot function properly.  ;-)
> > 
> 
> Looking at :
> 
> kernel/smp.c
> 
> smp_call_function_many() indeed has a smp_mb(). It is called by
> smp_call_function(). I wonder if it could eventually be turned into a
> smp_wmb() instead ? If this is even a remote possibility, then the fact
> that
> 
> - The rcu_fgp code does not document that it expects smp_call_function()
>   to have a smp_mb().
> - The fact that smp_call_function_many() comments do not state that this
>   function provides the guarantee to run a smp_mb().
> 
> are both asking for an eventual bug to creep into the kernel.

Many bugs -- I believe that a number of users of smp_call_function()
assume that it maintains ordering between the calling code and all
invocations of the function passed to smp_call_function().

> So your assumption seems OK, but I think it needs to be explicitly
> documented.

That might well be a good thing.

							Thanx, Paul

> Mathieu
> 
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * We must flip twice to correctly handle tasks that stall
> > > > +	 * in rcu_read_lock_fgp() between the time that they fetch
> > > > +	 * rcu_fgp_ctr and the time that the store to their CPU's
> > > > +	 * rcu_fgp_active_readers.  No matter when they resume
> > > > +	 * execution, we will wait for them to get to the corresponding
> > > > +	 * rcu_read_unlock_fgp().
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 0 -> 1 */
> > > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > > +	ACCESS_ONCE(rcu_fgp_ctr) ^= RCU_FGP_PARITY;  /* flip parity 1 -> 0 */
> > > > +	rcu_fgp_wait_for_quiescent_state();	     /* wait for old readers */
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Prevent CPUs from reordering out of prior RCU critical sections. */
> > > > +	smp_call_function(rcu_fgp_do_mb, NULL, 1);
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Same here.
> > > 
> > > So we would need to either add a smp_mb() at both of these locations, or
> > > use on_each_cpu() rather than smp_call_function. Note that this is to
> > > ensure that the "updater" thread executes these memory barriers.
> > 
> > Or rely on the barriers that must be part of smp_call_function.  ;-)
> > 
> > 						Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > Mathieu
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > +	rcu_fgp_completed++;
> > > > +	mutex_unlock(&rcu_fgp_mutex);
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_fgp);
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * rcu_fgp_batches_completed - return batches completed.
> > > > + * @sp: srcu_struct on which to report batch completion.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Report the number of batches, correlated with, but not necessarily
> > > > + * precisely the same as, the number of grace periods that have elapsed.
> > > > + */
> > > > +long rcu_fgp_batches_completed(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	return rcu_fgp_completed;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_fgp_batches_completed);
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/