[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG1a4rtKc0ZPZEeAsde-u7Xw9w36Oi05Zd--ueHT2XHbqRr6cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:04:06 -0400
From: Pavel Ivanov <paivanof@...il.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] rcu: Fix preempt-unsafe debug check of rcu extended
quiescent state
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> In the rcu_check_extended_qs() function that is used to check
> illegal uses of RCU under extended quiescent states, we look
> at the local value of dynticks that is even if an extended
> quiescent state or odd otherwise.
>
> We are looking at it without disabling the preemption though
> and this opens a race window where we may read the state of
> a remote CPU instead, like in the following scenario:
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
>
> bool rcu_check_extended_qs(void)
> {
> struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp;
>
> rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks,
> raw_smp_processor_id());
>
> < ---- Task is migrated here ---- >
>
> // CPU 1 goes idle and increase rdtp->dynticks
> /* Here we are reading the value for
> the remote CPU 1 instead of the local CPU */
> if (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)
> return false;
>
> return true;
> }
>
> The possible result of this is false positive return value of that
> function, suggesting we are in an extended quiescent state in random
> places.
How is this different from what your patch allows?
CPU 1 CPU 2
bool rcu_check_extended_qs(void)
{
struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp =
&get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
bool ext_qs = true;
if (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)
ext_qs = false;
put_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
< ---- Task is migrated here ---- >
/* Here we return true/false
based on the value for the
remote CPU 1 instead of the
local CPU */
return ext_qs;
}
Looks like it can result in the same false positive result.
Pavel
> Fix this by disabling preemption while reading that value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcutree.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index c9b4adf..234dca3 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -469,13 +469,15 @@ void rcu_irq_exit(void)
>
> bool rcu_check_extended_qs(void)
> {
> - struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp;
> + struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = &get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
> + bool ext_qs = true;
>
> - rdtp = &per_cpu(rcu_dynticks, raw_smp_processor_id());
> if (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)
> - return false;
> + ext_qs = false;
> +
> + put_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks);
>
> - return true;
> + return ext_qs;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_check_extended_qs);
>
> --
> 1.7.5.4
--
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