linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 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:	Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:10:52 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	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, rostedt@...dmis.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 v4 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU
	offline from atomic context

On 12/13, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2012 01:06 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But perhaps there is another reason to make it per-cpu...

Actually this is not the reason, please see below. But let me repeat,
it is not that I suggest to remove "per-cpu".

> > It seems we can avoid cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current check in
> > get/put.
> >
> > take_cpu_down() can clear this_cpu(writer_signal) right after it takes
> > hotplug_rwlock for writing. It runs with irqs and preemption disabled,
> > nobody else will ever look at writer_signal on its CPU.
> >
>
> Hmm.. And then the get/put_ on that CPU will increment/decrement the per-cpu
> refcount, but we don't care.. because we only need to ensure that they don't
> deadlock by taking the rwlock for read.

Yes, but...

Probably it would be more clean to simply do this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt)
after write_lock(hotplug_rwlock). This will have the same effect for get/put,
and we still can make writer_signal global (if we want).

And note that this will also simplify the lockdep annotations which we (imho)
should add later.

Ignoring all complications get_online_cpus_atomic() does:

	if (this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt))
		this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);
	else if (!writer_signal)
		this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);	// same as above
	else
		read_lock(&hotplug_rwlock);

But for lockdep it should do:

	if (this_cpu_read(reader_percpu_refcnt))
		this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);
	else if (!writer_signal) {
		this_cpu_inc(reader_percpu_refcnt);
		// pretend we take hotplug_rwlock for lockdep
		rwlock_acquire_read(&hotplug_rwlock.dep_map, 0, 0);
	}
	else
		read_lock(&hotplug_rwlock);

And we need to ensure that rwlock_acquire_read() is not called under
write_lock(hotplug_rwlock).

If we use reader_percpu_refcnt to fool get/put, we should not worry.

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/