linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] powerpc: Add rcu_read_lock() to gup

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:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:14:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] powerpc: Add rcu_read_lock() to gup_fast()
 implementation

On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 08:09 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 04:56:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 07:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 04:23:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 07:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > Of course, with call_rcu_sched(), the corresponding RCU read-side critical
> > > > > > > sections are non-preemptible.  Therefore, in CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, these
> > > > > > > read-side critical sections must use raw spinlocks.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > OK, so if we fully remove CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU (defaulting to y),
> > > > > > rename all the {call_rcu, rcu_read_lock, rcu_read_unlock,
> > > > > > synchronize_rcu} functions to {*}_preempt and then add a new
> > > > > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU that simply maps {*} to either {*}_sched or
> > > > > > {*}_preempt, we've basically got what I've been asking for for a while,
> > > > > > no?
> > > > > 
> > > > > What would rcu_read_lock_preempt() do in a !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel?
> > > > 
> > > > Same as for a preempt one, since you'd have to be able to schedule()
> > > > while holding it to be able to do things like mutex_lock().
> > > 
> > > So what you really want is something like rcu_read_lock_sleep() rather
> > > than rcu_read_lock_preempt(), right?  The point is that you want to do
> > > more than merely preempt, given that it is legal to do general blocking
> > > while holding a mutex, correct?
> > 
> > Right, but CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=y ends up being that. We could change
> > the name to _sleep, but we've been calling it preemptible-rcu for a long
> > while now.
> 
> It is actually not permitted to do general blocking in a preemptible RCU
> read-side critical section.  Otherwise, someone is going to block waiting
> for a network packet that never comes, thus OOMing the system.

Sure, something that guarantees progress seems like a sensible
restriction for any lock, and in particular RCU :-)


--
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/