linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuhotplug: use rw_semaphore for 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:04:37 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...e.hu, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuhotplug: use rw_semaphore for cpu_hotplug

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/29, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 05/29, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:30 +0800
>>> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Current get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() re-implement
>>>> a rw_semaphore,
>>>> so it is converted to a real rw_semaphore in this fix.
>>>> It simplifies codes, and is good for read.
>>>>  static struct {
>>>> -	struct task_struct *active_writer;
>>>> -	struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
>>>>  	/*
>>>> -	 * Also blocks the new readers during
>>>> -	 * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
>>>> +	 * active_writer makes get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() are allowd
>>>> +	 * to be nested in cpu_hotplug_begin()/cpu_hotplug_done().
>>>> +	 *
>>>> +	 * Thus, get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() can be called in
>>>> +	 * CPU notifiers.
>>>>  	 */
>>>> -	int refcount;
>>>> +	struct task_struct *active_writer;
>>>> +	struct rw_semaphore rwlock;
>>>>  } cpu_hotplug;
>> But, afaics, down_write() blocks new readers.
>>
>> This means that with this patch get_online_cpus() is not recursive, no?
> 
> And please note that the current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus()
> succeeds. With your patch (if I read it correctly) the code under get_()
> runs with cpu_hotplug->rwlock held for reading. I'm afraid this creates
> the new possibilities for deadlocks.
> 

The current code drops mutex when get_online_cpus() succeeds, BUT it
increases the counter as what down_read() does. I think the current
code has the same deadlocks which the down_read()-implement has.

Since the current code use mutex + counter to implement a "down_read()",
why not use the down_read() directly?
And down_read() can be checked by lockdep.

Lai.

--
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/