linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/urgent 4/7] rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers

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:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:54:27 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org,
	greearb@...delatech.com, edt@....ca,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/urgent 4/7] rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock()
 against scheduler-using irq handlers

On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 17:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> @@ -391,10 +400,15 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
>         struct task_struct *t = current;
>  
>         barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> -       if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> -               barrier();  /* decr before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> +       if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting != 1)
> +               --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> +       else {
> +               t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = INT_MIN;
> +               barrier();  /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
>                 if (unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
>                         rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> +               barrier();  /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> +               t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
>         }
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
>         WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0); 

But won't the above change make that WARN_ON_ONCE() invalid?
--
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/