linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical section?

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: <20130906203821.GX3966@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:38:21 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side critical
 section?

On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 08:59:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:41:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 08:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > 
> > > > int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void)
> > > > {
> > > > 	int ret;
> > > > 
> > > > 	preempt_disable();
> > > > 	ret = (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks).dynticks) & 0x1) == 0;
> > > > 	preempt_enable();
> > > > 	return ret;
> > > > }
> > > 
> > > Paul I find this very confusing.
> > > 
> > > If caller doesn't have preemption disabled, what could be the meaning of
> > > this rcu_is_cpu_idle() call ?
> > > 
> > > Its result is meaningless if suddenly thread is preempted, so what is
> > > the point ?
> > > 
> > > Sorry if this is obvious to you.
> > 
> > It is a completely fair question.  In fact, this might well now be
> > pointing to a bug given NO_HZ_FULL.
> > 
> > The assumption is that if you don't have preemption disabled, you had
> > better be running on a CPU that RCU is paying attention to.  The rationale
> > involves preemptible RCU.
> > 
> > Suppose that you just did rcu_read_lock() on a CPU that RCU is paying
> > attention to.  All is well, and rcu_is_cpu_idle() will return false, as
> > expected.  Suppose now that it is possible to be preempted and suddenly
> > find yourself running on a CPU that RCU is not paying attention to.
> > This would have the effect of making your RCU read-side critical section
> > be ignored.  Therefore, it had better not be possible to be preempted
> > from a CPU to which RCU is paying attention to a CPU that RCU is ignoring.
> > 
> > So if rcu_is_cpu_idle() returns false, you had better be guaranteed
> > that whatever CPU you are running on (which might well be a different
> > one than the rcu_is_cpu_idle() was running on) is being watched by RCU.
> > 
> > So, Frederic, does this still work with NO_HZ_FULL?  If not, I believe
> > we have a bigger problem than the preempt_disable() in rcu_is_cpu_idle()!
> 
> Sure it works well, because the scheduler task entrypoints exit those RCU
> extended quiescent states.
> 
> Imagine that you're running on an rcu read side critical section on CPU 0, which
> is not in extended quiescent state. Now you get preempted in the middle of your
> RCU read side critical section (you called rcu_read_lock() but not yet rcu_read_unlock()).
> 
> Later on, the task is woken up to be scheduled in CPU 1. If CPU 1 is in extended
> quiescent state because it runs is userspace, it receives a scheduler IPI,
> then schedule_user() is called by the end of the interrupt and in turns calls rcu_user_exit()
> before the task is resumed to the code it was running on CPU 0, in the middle of
> the rcu read side extended quiescent state.
> 
> See, the key here is the rcu_user_exit() that restore the CPU on RCU's state machine.
> There are other possible scheduler entrypoints when a CPU runs in user extended quiescent
> state: exception and syscall entries or even preempt_schedule_irq() in case we receive an irq
> in the kernel while we haven't yet reached the call to rcu_user_exit()... All of these should
> be covered, otherwise you bet RCU would be prompt to warn.
> 
> That's why when we call rcu_is_cpu_idle() from an RCU read side critical section, it's legit even
> if we can be preempted anytime around it.
> And preempt_disable() is probably not even necessary, except perhaps if __get_cpu_var() itself
> relies on non-preemptibility for its own correctness on the address calculation.

Whew!!!  ;-)

But the problem for rcu_is_cpu_idle() was not the calls from the scheduler,
but rather those from lockdep.  If the overhead is a concern, you could
switch to the primitives I will be supplying for Steven.

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/