| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110920145754.GB2380@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 07:57:54 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.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, peterz@...radead.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 41/55] rcu: Permit rt_mutex_unlock() with
irqs disabled
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:49:33PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:09:23PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >> > index d3127e8..f6c63ea 100644
> >> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> >> > @@ -1149,6 +1149,8 @@ static void rcu_initiate_boost_trace(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> >> >
> >> > #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE */
> >> >
> >> > +static struct lock_class_key rcu_boost_class;
> >> > +
> >> > /*
> >> > * Carry out RCU priority boosting on the task indicated by ->exp_tasks
> >> > * or ->boost_tasks, advancing the pointer to the next task in the
> >> > @@ -1211,10 +1213,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> >> > */
> >> > t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
> >> > rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
> >> > + /* Avoid lockdep false positives. This rt_mutex is its own thing. */
> >> > + lockdep_set_class_and_name(&mtx.wait_lock, &rcu_boost_class,
> >> > + "rcu_boost_mutex");
> >> > t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> >>
> >> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); <====A
> >>
> >> > rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
> >> > rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
> >> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>
> >> Does it help here?
> >> irq is enabled at A. So we still call rt_mutex_lock() with irq enabled.
> >>
> >> Seems should s/raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore/raw_spin_unlock ?
> >
> > Hmmm... The above works at least by accident, but I am clearly not
> > testing calling rt_mutex_lock(&mtx) and rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx) with
> > interrupts disabled anywhere near as heavily as I thought I was.
> >
> > I will fix this one way or the other.
>
> Forget to mention: if we want to suppress the lockdep warning on
> overlapping usage of rcu_read_*()/local_irq_*() like below:
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> local_irq_disable();
> ...
> rcu_read_unlock();
> ...
> local_irq_enable();
>
> 'rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);' must also be surrounded by
> local_irq_irqsave()/restore().
>
> Untested patch is attached.
What I am doing for 3.2 (given that the merge window is likely very soon)
is removing the redundant local_irq_restore(). For 3.3, I will apply
something like your patch below to rcu_boost(), and will think about
what (if anything) to do about rcu_read_unlock_special(). With your
Signed-off-by either way, of course.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
> ---
> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Permit rt_mutex_unlock() with irqs disabled take#2
>
> This make the below rcu usage really valid(AKA: lockdep
> will not warn on it):
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> local_irq_disable();
> rcu_read_unlock();
> local_irq_enable();
>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index e7eea74..d41a9b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -398,8 +398,11 @@ static noinline void
> rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
> /* Unboost if we were boosted. */
> - if (rbmp)
> + if (rbmp) {
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + }
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>
> /*
> @@ -1225,7 +1228,7 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> lockdep_set_class_and_name(&mtx.wait_lock, &rcu_boost_class,
> "rcu_boost_mutex");
> t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
> rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
> rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> --
> 1.7.4.1
> From 7d74d1b89a4cd4c03b30e47044b716913f68bd1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:42:32 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Permit rt_mutex_unlock() with irqs disabled take#2
>
> This make the below rcu usage really valid(AKA: lockdep
> will not warn on it):
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> local_irq_disable();
> rcu_read_unlock();
> local_irq_enable();
>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index e7eea74..d41a9b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -398,8 +398,11 @@ static noinline void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
> /* Unboost if we were boosted. */
> - if (rbmp)
> + if (rbmp) {
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + }
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>
> /*
> @@ -1225,7 +1228,7 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> lockdep_set_class_and_name(&mtx.wait_lock, &rcu_boost_class,
> "rcu_boost_mutex");
> t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rnp->lock);
> rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
> rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists