linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/41] rcu: Add lockdep-RCU checks for simple self-deadlock

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: <20120203090449.GG3008@leaf>
Date:	Fri, 3 Feb 2012 01:04:49 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, 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,
	fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/41] rcu: Add lockdep-RCU checks for
 simple self-deadlock

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:42:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:56:38AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 08:20:17AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:55:54PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:41:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is illegal to have a grace period within a same-flavor RCU read-side
> > > > > critical section, so this commit adds lockdep-RCU checks to splat when
> > > > > such abuse is encountered.  This commit does not detect more elaborate
> > > > > RCU deadlock situations.  These situations might be a job for lockdep
> > > > > enhancements.
> > > > 
> > > > Since doing so also violates the prohibition on blocking within an RCU
> > > > read-side critical section, wouldn't it suffice to call might_sleep() or
> > > > equivalent, which also detects other problems?  (Obviously this doesn't
> > > > apply to SRCU, but it applies to the other variants of RCU.)
> > > 
> > > Yes, but...
> > > 
> > > The advantage of the lockdep-RCU splat is that it gives you a better
> > > hint as to where the RCU read-side critical section was entered, which
> > > is very helpful when tracking these down, especially when they are
> > > intermittent.
> > 
> > Ah, fair enough.
> > 
> > > And yes, I should also well check for the other variants of RCU read-side
> > > critical section (other than RCU).  Done.
> > 
> > Oh?  What hadn't you checked for?
> 
> Things like synchronize_sched() in rcu_read_lock() critical section
> and vice versa.

Ouch.  Good idea.

That also suggests another interesting possibility: lockdep could tag
pointers used in the flavor-specific rcu_dereference variants and
pointers used in the call_rcu variants to make sure nobody uses multiple
variants on the same pointer. :)  (Assuming we don't want
flavor-specific __rcu_* pointer tags.)

Speaking of which, could kfree_rcu require its argument to have the
__rcu type annotation?  We can't necessarily guarantee that for call_rcu
in all cases, but I think we can for kfree_rcu.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/