linux-kernel - Re: [BUG?] [Ext4] INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference

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:	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:31:14 -0600
From:	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Arun Bhanu <ab@...nbhanu.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] [Ext4] INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage

On 2010-11-22 at around 0:38:49, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39:49AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it's no problem.
> > >
> > > That's because migration always holds lock_page on the file page.
> > > So the page couldn't remove from radix.
> >
> > It may be "ok" in that it won't cause a race, but it still leaves an
> > unsightly warning if LOCKDEP is enabled, and LOCKDEP warnings will
> > cause /proc_lock_stat to be disabled.  So I think it still needs to be
> > fixed by adding rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() to
> > migrate_page_move_mapping().
> >
> >                                                     - Ted
> >
> 
> Yes. if it is really "ok" about race, we will add rcu_read_lock with
> below comment to prevent false positive.
> "suppress RCU lockdep false positives".
> But I am not sure it's good although rcu_read_lock is little cost.
> Whenever we find false positive, should we add rcu_read_lock to
> suppress although it's no problem in real product?
> Couldn't we provide following function? (or we might have already it
> but I missed it. )
> 
> /*
>  * Suppress RCU lockdep false positive.
>  */
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> #define rcu_read_lock_suppress rcu_read_lock
> #else
> #define rcu_read_lock_suppress
> #endif

No, you don't need anything like this, as rcu_dereference_check already
takes a test for alternate locking.

However, looking more closely at the code, it appears this is the
"the tree is write locked" case as described in radix-tree.h

Looking at rcupdate.h, perhaps we need a version of radix_tree_deref_slot
that uses rcu_dereference_protected?

Copying Paul McKenney for rcu ...

milton
--
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/