linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by using percpu counter

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: <20100405162901.GA3567@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:29:01 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Shane Wang <shane.wang@...el.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpuhotplug: make get_online_cpus() scalability by
	using percpu counter

On 04/05, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> 1) get_online_cpus() must be allowed to be called recursively, so I added
>    get_online_cpus_nest for every task for new code.

Well, iirc one of the goals of

	cpu-hotplug: replace lock_cpu_hotplug() with get_online_cpus()
	86ef5c9a8edd78e6bf92879f32329d89b2d55b5a

was avoiding the new members in task_struct. I leave this up to you
and Gautham.


Lai, I didn't read this patch carefully yet (and I can't apply it to
Linus's tree). But at first glance,

>  void put_online_cpus(void)
>  {
> ...
> +	if (!--current->get_online_cpus_nest) {
> +		preempt_disable();
> +		__get_cpu_var(refcount)--;
> +		if (cpu_hotplug_task)
> +			wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug_task);

This looks unsafe. In theory nothing protects cpu_hotplug_task from
exiting if refcount_sum() becomes zero, this means wake_up_process()
can hit the freed/reused/unmapped task_struct. Probably cpu_hotplug_done()
needs another synhronize_sched() before return.

OTOH, I do not understand why the result of __get_cpu_var(refcount)
must be visible to refcount_sum() if we race with cpu_hotplug_begin(),
so it seems to me cpu_hotplug_begin() also needs synchronize_sched()
before refcount_sum().

Oleg.

--
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/