linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101210230200.GK2125@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:02:00 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, laijs@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:11:11PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> When a CPU that was in an extended quiescent state wakes
> up and catches up with grace periods that remote CPUs
> completed on its behalf, we update the completed field
> but not the gpnum that keeps a stale value of a backward
> grace period ID.
> 
> Later, note_new_gpnum() will interpret the shift between
> the local CPU and the node grace period ID as some new grace
> period to handle and will then start to hunt quiescent state.
> 
> But if every grace periods have already been completed, this
> interpretation becomes broken. And we'll be stuck in clusters
> of spurious softirqs because rcu_report_qs_rdp() will make
> this broken state run into infinite loop.
> 
> The solution, as suggested by Lai Jiangshan, is to ensure that
> the gpnum and completed fields are well synchronized when we catch
> up with completed grace periods on their behalf by other cpus.
> This way we won't start noting spurious new grace periods.

Also good, queued!

One issue -- this approach is vulnerable to overflow.  I therefore
followed up with a patch that changes the condition to

	if (ULONG_CMP_LT(rdp->gpnum, rdp->completed))

And I clearly need to make RCU defend itself against the scenario where
a CPU stays in dyntick-idle mode long enough for the grace-period number
to wrap halfway around its range of possible values.  Not a problem at
the moment, and never will be for 64-bit systems, but...

I will fix that up.

							Thanx, Paul

> Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org
> ---
>  kernel/rcutree.c |    9 +++++++++
>  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 8c4ed60..2e16da3 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -683,6 +683,15 @@ __rcu_process_gp_end(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_node *rnp, struct rcu_dat
>  		rdp->completed = rnp->completed;
> 
>  		/*
> +		 * If we were in an extended quiescent state, we may have
> +		 * missed some grace periods that others CPUs took care on
> +		 * our behalf. Catch up with this state to avoid noting
> +		 * spurious new grace periods.
> +		 */
> +		if (rdp->completed > rdp->gpnum)
> +			rdp->gpnum = rdp->completed;
> +
> +		/*
>  		 * If another CPU handled our extended quiescent states and
>  		 * we have no more grace period to complete yet, then stop
>  		 * chasing quiescent states.
> -- 
> 1.7.3.2
> 
--
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/