linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/10] rcu: Add a TINY_PREEMPT

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: <20100816215555.GL2388@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:55:55 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	josh@...htriplett.org, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/10] rcu: Add a TINY_PREEMPT_RCU

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:41:23PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:19:47PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:07:37AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * Tiny-preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > > > + * Decrement ->rcu_read_lock_nesting.  If the result is zero (outermost
> > > > > > + * rcu_read_unlock()) and ->rcu_read_unlock_special is non-zero, then
> > > > > > + * invoke rcu_read_unlock_special() to clean up after a context switch
> > > > > > + * in an RCU read-side critical section and other special cases.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutiny.c */
> > > > > > +	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > > > > +	    unlikely(t->rcu_read_unlock_special))
> > > > 
> > > > First, thank you for looking this over!!!
> > > > 
> > > > > Hrm I think we discussed this in a past life, but would the following
> > > > > sequence be possible and correct ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > CPU 0
> > > > > 
> > > > > read t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > > >   interrupt comes in, preempts. sets t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > > >   <preempted>
> > > > >   <scheduled back>
> > > > >   iret
> > > > > decrement and read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > > > test both old "special" value (which we have locally on the stack) and
> > > > > detect that rcu_read_lock_nesting is 0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We actually missed a reschedule.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think we might need a barrier() between the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > > > and t->rcu_read_unlock_special reads.
> > > > 
> > > > You are correct -- I got too aggressive in eliminating synchronization.
> > > > 
> > > > Good catch!!!
> > > > 
> > > > I added an ACCESS_ONCE() to the second term of the "if" condition so
> > > > that it now reads:
> > > > 
> > > > 	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > > 	    unlikely((ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > > > 
> > > > This prevents the compiler from reordering because the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > > > prohibits accessing t->rcu_read_unlock_special unless the value of
> > > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting is known to be zero.
> > > 
> > > Hrm, --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting does not have any globally visible
> > > side-effect, so the compiler is free to reorder the memory access across
> > > the rcu_read_unlock_special access. I think we need the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > > around the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting access too.
> > 
> > Indeed, it is free to reorder that access.  This has the effect of
> > extending the scope of the RCU read-side critical section, which is
> > harmless as long as it doesn't pull a lock or some such into it.
> > 
> 
> So what happens if we get:
> 
> CPU 0
> 
> read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> check if equals to 1
> read t->rcu_read_unlock_special
>   interrupt comes in, preempts. sets t->rcu_read_unlock_special
>   <preempted>
>   <scheduled back>
>   iret
> decrement t->rcu_read_lock_nesting

Moving this down past the check of t->rcu_read_lock_special (which is
now covered by ACCESS_ONCE()) would violate the C standard, as it would
be equivalent to moving a volatile up past a sequence point.

							Thanx, Paul

> test rcu_read_unlock_special value (read prior to interrupt)
>  -> fails to notice the preemption that came in after the
>     rcu_read_unlock_special read.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
--
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/