linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/6] documentation: Document call

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: <20140217225228.GL4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:52:28 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/6] documentation: Document call_rcu()
 safety mechanisms and limitations

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:39:30PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > The call_rcu() family of primitives will take action to accelerate
> > grace periods when the number of callbacks pending on a given CPU
> > becomes excessive.  Although this safety mechanism can be useful,
> > it is no substitute for users of call_rcu() having rate-limit controls
> > in place.  This commit adds this nuance to the documentation.
> > 
> > Reported-by: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Grammatical nit below; otherwise:
> Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> 
> >  Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
> > index 91266193b8f4..5733e31836b5 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt
> > @@ -256,10 +256,11 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
> >  		variations on this theme.
> >  
> >  	b.	Limiting update rate.  For example, if updates occur only
> > -		once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is required,
> > -		unless your system is already badly broken.  The dcache
> > -		subsystem takes this approach -- updates are guarded
> > -		by a global lock, limiting their rate.
> > +		once per hour, then no explicit rate limiting is
> > +		required, unless your system is already badly broken.
> > +		Older versions of the dcache subsystem takes this
> > +		approach -- updates were guarded by a global lock,
> > +		limiting their rate.
> 
> s/takes/take/ to match the change from the singular "The dcache
> subsystem" to the plural "Older versions of the dcache subsystem"
> 
> (You might also change " -- updates are guarded by" to ", guarding
> updates with".)

Took both suggested changes and applied your Reviewed-by.  Thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> >  	c.	Trusted update -- if updates can only be done manually by
> >  		superuser or some other trusted user, then it might not
> > @@ -268,7 +269,8 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
> >  		the machine.
> >  
> >  	d.	Use call_rcu_bh() rather than call_rcu(), in order to take
> > -		advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods.
> > +		advantage of call_rcu_bh()'s faster grace periods.  (This
> > +		is only a partial solution, though.)
> >  
> >  	e.	Periodically invoke synchronize_rcu(), permitting a limited
> >  		number of updates per grace period.
> > @@ -276,6 +278,13 @@ over a rather long period of time, but improvements are always welcome!
> >  	The same cautions apply to call_rcu_bh(), call_rcu_sched(),
> >  	call_srcu(), and kfree_rcu().
> >  
> > +	Note that although these primitives do take action to avoid memory
> > +	exhaustion when any given CPU has too many callbacks, a determined
> > +	user could still exhaust memory.  This is especially the case
> > +	if a system with a large number of CPUs has been configured to
> > +	offload all of its RCU callbacks onto a single CPU, or if the
> > +	system has relatively little free memory.
> > +
> >  9.	All RCU list-traversal primitives, which include
> >  	rcu_dereference(), list_for_each_entry_rcu(), and
> >  	list_for_each_safe_rcu(), must be either within an RCU read-side
> > -- 
> > 1.8.1.5
> > 
> 

--
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/