linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

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: <20090812141107.GD6833@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:11:07 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 04:25:40PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:01:35AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > I think I understand what your comment above meant:  You don't need to
> > do synchronize_rcu() because you can flush the workqueue instead to
> > ensure that all readers have completed.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >  But if thats true, to me, the
> > rcu_dereference itself is gratuitous,
> 
> Here's a thesis on what rcu_dereference does (besides documentation):
> 
> reader does this
> 
> 	A: sock = n->sock
> 	B: use *sock
> 
> Say writer does this:
> 
> 	C: newsock = allocate socket
> 	D: initialize(newsock)
> 	E: n->sock = newsock
> 	F: flush
> 
> 
> On Alpha, reads could be reordered.  So, on smp, command A could get
> data from point F, and command B - from point D (uninitialized, from
> cache).  IOW, you get fresh pointer but stale data.
> So we need to stick a barrier in there.
> 
> > and that pointer is *not* actually
> > RCU protected (nor does it need to be).
> 
> Heh, if readers are lockless and writer does init/update/sync,
> this to me spells rcu.

If you are using call_rcu(), synchronize_rcu(), or one of the
similar primitives, then you absolutely need rcu_read_lock() and
rcu_read_unlock(), or one of the similar pairs of primitives.

If you -don't- use rcu_read_lock(), then you are pretty much restricted
to adding data, but never removing it.

Make sense?  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/