linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync

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:	Sun, 6 Oct 2013 15:22:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] rcusync: introduce rcu_sync_struct->exclusive mode

On 10/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:56:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But yes, slightly more complex code :/

Yes. rcu_sync_busy() adds more obscurity and we need to implement
the logic which wait_for_completion already does.

> That would yield something like so I suppose:
>
> void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> {
> 	bool need_wait, need_sync;
>
> 	spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
> 	if (rss->exclusive && rss->gp_count) {
> 		__wait_event_locked(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_count);
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess you meant !rss->gp_count.

> 		rss->gp_count++;
> 		need_wait = need_sync = false;
> 	} else {
> 		need_wait = rss->gp_count++;
> 		need_sync = rss->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
> 		if (need_sync)
> 			rss->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
> 	}
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&rss->lock);
>
> 	if (need_sync) {
> 		rss->sync();
> 		rss->gp_state = GP_PASSED;
> 		wake_up_all(&rss->gp_wait);
> 	} else if (need_wait) {
> 		wait_event(rss->gp_wait, rss->gp_state == GP_PASSED);
> 	} else {
> 		BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
> 	}
> }

I am obviously biased, but imho the code looks worse this way.
I like the current simple "need_wait" and "gp_count != 0" logic.

And afaics this is racy,

> static bool rcu_sync_busy(struct rcu_sync_struct *rss)
> {
> 	return rss->gp_count ||
> 		(rss->exclusive && waitqueue_active(&rss->gp_wait));
> }
>
> static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> {
> 	struct rcu_sync_struct *rss =
> 		container_of(rcu, struct rcu_sync_struct, cb_head);
> 	unsigned long flags;
>
> 	BUG_ON(rss->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
> 	BUG_ON(rss->cb_state == CB_IDLE);
>
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(&rss->rss_lock, flags);
> 	if (rcu_sync_busy(rss)) {
> 		/*
> 		 * A new rcu_sync_begin() has happened; drop the callback.
> 		 */
> 		rss->cb_state = CB_IDLE;

Yes, but if rcu_sync_exit() does __wake_up_locked(), then
autoremove_wake_function() makes waitqueue_active() == F. If the pending
rcu_sync_func() takes ->rss_lock first we have a problem.

Easy to fix, but needs more complications.

Or we can simply ignore the fact that rcu_sync_func() can race with
wakeup. This can lead to unnecessary sched_sync() but this case is
unlikely. IOW,

	spin_lock_irq(&rss->rss_lock);
	if (rss->exclusive)
		wait_event_locked(rss->gp_wait, !rss->gp_count);
	need_wait = rss->gp_count++;
	need_sync = rss->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
	if (need_sync)
		rss->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
	spin_unlock_irq(&rss->lock);

But still I don't like the (imho) unnecessary complications. And the
fact we can race with rcu_sync_func() even if this is very unlikely,
this just doesn't look good.

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/