linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs

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]

Message-ID: <4EEF0003.3010800@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:12:35 -0800
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	mc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, david@...morbit.com,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than
 online CPUs

On 12/18/2011 11:31 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel the following patch is a better fix for 2 reasons:
>
> 1. As Al Viro pointed out, if we do for_each_possible_cpus() then we might
> encounter unnecessary performance hit in some scenarios. So working with
> only online cpus, safely(a.k.a race-free), if possible, would be a good
> solution (which this patch implements).
>
> 2. *_global_lock_online() and *_global_unlock_online() needs fixing as well
> because, the names suggest that they lock/unlock per-CPU locks of only the
> currently online CPUs, but unfortunately they do not have any synchronization
> to prevent offlining those CPUs in between, if it happens to race with a CPU
> hotplug operation.
>
> And if we solve issue 2 above "carefully" (as mentioned in the changelog below),
> it solves this whole thing!

We started seeing this same problem last week. I've come up with almost 
the same solution but you beat me to the list!

> diff --git a/include/linux/lglock.h b/include/linux/lglock.h
> index f549056..583d1a8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lglock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lglock.h
> @@ -126,6 +127,7 @@
>   	int i;								\
>   	preempt_disable();						\
>   	rwlock_acquire(&name##_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);		\
> +	get_online_cpus();						\
>   	for_each_online_cpu(i) {					\
>   		arch_spinlock_t *lock;					\
>   		lock =&per_cpu(name##_lock, i);			\
> @@ -142,6 +144,7 @@
>   		lock =&per_cpu(name##_lock, i);			\
>   		arch_spin_unlock(lock);					\
>   	}								\
> +	put_online_cpus();						\
>   	preempt_enable();						\
>    }									\
>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_global_unlock_online);				\

Don't you want to call {get,put}_online_cpus() outside the 
preempt_{disable,enable}()? Otherwise you are scheduling while atomic?

With that fixed

Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>

but I wonder if taking the hotplug mutex even for a short time reduces 
the effectiveness of these locks? Or is it more about fast readers and 
slow writers?
--
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/