linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads trainwreck

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:29:49 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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,
	edward.tomlinson@...o.bombardier.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu/urgent 0/6] Fixes for RCU/scheduler/irq-threads
 trainwreck

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:02:47PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >>  6 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> looks very scary to me.
> >
> > A lot of that is also relevant to !BOOST.
> 
> Can we limit this somehow? Or split it up? Which part of this is "fix
> new BOOST features, not ever even executed without BOOST", and which
> part of this is "fixes core stuff"?

#2 (Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special) and
#7 (align __lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU) are needed only
for RCU_BOOST.  The rest fix problems that can occur even with !RCU_BOOST.
I believe that #4 (protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using 
irq handlers) turns #1 (decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler)
into a longer-term maintenance issue rather than an urgent fix.

> I *really* hate the timing of this. The code that is only impacted by
> BOOST I cannot find it in myself to care about, and I'd be willing to
> consider it basically EXPERIMENTAL and just pulling it.

I can only say that I completely failed in my goal of making my code
go in without a ripple.  :-(

> IOW, is the core non-boost fix just a few obvious oneliners?
> 
> The "it all broke completely" in previous version of this also doesn't
> make me get all the warm fuzzies. Which all makes me go "what is
> minimal and really really SAFE?"

Peter, does #4 (protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using
irq handlers) remove the need for #5 (Add irq_{enter,exit}() to
scheduler_ipi()) and #6 (Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity)?  My guess is
"no" for #5 and "yes" for #6.

If my guess is correct, then the minimal non-RCU_BOOST fix is #4 (which
drags along #3) and #6.  Which are not one-liners, but somewhat smaller:

 b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h |   12 ++++++------
 b/kernel/softirq.c        |   12 ++++++++++--
 kernel/rcutree_plugin.h   |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

How would you like to proceed?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/