linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU offline from atomic context

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]

Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:15:21 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tj@...nel.org, sbw@....edu,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rjw@...k.pl, wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU
	offline from atomic context

On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2012 02:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >>
> >> 4. No deadlock possibilities
> >>
> >>    Per-cpu locking is not the way to go if we want to have relaxed rules
> >>    for lock-ordering. Because, we can end up in circular-locking dependencies
> >>    as explained in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/290
> >
> > OK, but this assumes that, contrary to what Steven said, read-write-read
> > deadlock is not possible when it comes to rwlock_t.
>
> What I meant is, with a single (global) rwlock, you can't deadlock like that.

Ah. I greatly misunderstood Steven's email,

http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=135482212307876

Somehow I didn't notice he described the deadlock with _two_ rwlock's, I
wrongly thought that his point is that read_lock() is not recursive (like
down_read).

> Let me know if my assumptions are incorrect!

No, sorry, I misunderstood Steven.


> > However. If this is true, then compared to preempt_disable/stop_machine
> > livelock is possible. Probably this is fine, we have the same problem with
> > get_online_cpus(). But if we can accept this fact I feel we can simmplify
> > this somehow... Can't prove, only feel ;)
>
> Not sure I follow..

I meant that write_lock_irqsave(&hotplug_rwlock) in take_cpu_down()
can spin "forever".

Suppose that reader_acked() == T on every CPU, so that
get_online_cpus_atomic() always takes read_lock(&hotplug_rwlock).

It is possible that this lock will be never released by readers,

	CPU_0				CPU_1

	get_online_cpus_atomic()
					get_online_cpus_atomic()
	put_online_cpus_atomic()

	get_online_cpus_atomic()
					put_online_cpus_atomic()

					get_online_cpus_atomic()
	put_online_cpus_atomic()

and so on.


> Reader-side:
>    -> read_lock() your per-cpu rwlock and proceed.
>
> Writer-side:
>    -> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>           write_lock(per-cpu rwlock of 'cpu');

Yes, yes, this is clear.

> Also, like Tejun said, one of the important measures for per-cpu rwlocks
> should be that, if a user replaces global rwlocks with percpu rwlocks (for
> performance reasons), he shouldn't suddenly end up in numerous deadlock
> possibilities which never existed before. The replacement should continue to
> remain safe, and perhaps improve the performance.

Sure, I agree.

Oleg.

--
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/