linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] rtmutex: Permit rt_mutex_unlock() to be invoked with irqs disabled

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: <CACqU3MWYTzueDrvDqzq8_SB3WS6CWy-rJ=ZQC+QBHN8vkAwtnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:31:05 -0400
From:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	darren@...art.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rtmutex: Permit rt_mutex_unlock() to be invoked with
 irqs disabled

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:00:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:05:13AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > > > > Thomas, I'm inclined to merge this, any objections?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > FWIW, it has been passing tests here.
>> > > >
>> > > > If it's only the unlock path, I'm fine with that change.
>> > > >
>> > > > Acked-by-me
>> > >
>> > > Hrmpft. That's requiring all places to take the lock irq safe. Not
>> > > really amused. For -RT that's a hotpath and we can really do without
>> > > the irq fiddling there. That needs a bit more thought.
>> >
>> > Indeed...  If I make only some of the lock acquisitions irq safe, lockdep
>> > will yell at me.  And rightfully so, as that could result in deadlock.
>> >
>> > So, what did you have in mind?
>>
>> Have no real good idea yet for this. Could you grab rt and check
>> whether you can observe any impact when the patch is applied?
>
> Hmmm, wait a minute...  There might be a way to do this with zero
> impact on the fastpath, given that I am allocating an rt_mutex on
> the stack that is used only by RCU priority boosting, and that only
> rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(), rt_mutex_lock(), and rt_mutex_unlock()
> are used.
>
> So I could do the following:
>
> o       Use lockdep_set_class_and_name() to make the ->wait_lock()
>        field of my rt_mutex have a separate lockdep class.  I guess
>        I should allocate a global variable for lock_class_key
>        rather than allocating it on the stack.  ;-)
>
> o       Make all calls from RCU priority boosting to rt_mutex_lock()
>        and rt_mutex_unlock() have irqs disabled.
>
> o       Make __rt_mutex_slowlock() do the following when sleeping:
>
>        raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
>
>        debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter);
>
>        {
>                int was_disabled = irqs_disabled();
>
>                if (was_disabled)
>                        local_irq_enable();
>
FWIW, the final construct you opted for in -next:

    if (was_disabled = irqs_disabled())
        local_irq_enable();

triggers:

/linux/linux/kernel/rtmutex.c: In function '__rt_mutex_slowlock':
/linux/linux/kernel/rtmutex.c:605:3: warning: suggest parentheses
around assignment used as truth value

 - Arnaud

>                schedule_rt_mutex(lock);
>
>                if (was_disabled)
>                        local_irq_disable();
>
>        }
>
>        raw_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
>        set_current_state(state);
>
> Would that work reasonably?
>
>                                                        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/
>
--
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/