linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock

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: <53EE4278.8030909@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:25:12 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with
 seqlock

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/15/2014 12:49 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> Just in case... Yes, sure, "seqlock_t stats_lock" is more scalable.
> Just I do not know it's worth the trouble.

If we don't know whether it is worth the trouble, it is probably best
to stick to a well-known generic locking algorithm, instead of brewing
our own and trying to maintain it.

I have fixed the other locking issue you pointed out, Oleg.

Now to see if this change to cputime_adjust does the trick :)

+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -605,9 +605,12 @@ static void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr,
 	 * If the tick based count grows faster than the scheduler one,
 	 * the result of the scaling may go backward.
 	 * Let's enforce monotonicity.
+	 * Atomic exchange protects against concurrent cputime_adjust.
 	 */
- -	prev->stime = max(prev->stime, stime);
- -	prev->utime = max(prev->utime, utime);
+	while (stime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->stime)))
+		cmpxchg(&prev->stime, rtime, stime);
+	while (utime > (rtime = ACCESS_ONCE(prev->utime)))
+		cmpxchg(&prev->utime, rtime, utime);

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT7kJ4AAoJEM553pKExN6Do/oH/2lA5X/CrVuhOLBK1sVq3kRh
gGiOTT9pDQZH1wwafVNHKWaro3T/s9GNqemgvgt4UiKbjFeYkaOycHp1cuntJj8j
Wk8zNnWBOuGqqcSxzk1Duco3CByxshLNXxuYJfpdkdEXPqRyvURAOL58pxSybZzh
E6lT747ntFJu3GIbfC6Ta3q58pWLpVrhWlvonhSaqat6tOvlzo4MKiJxz3SbT6i0
cCpmQ5p/JoQ5+IUEbTOZYbE2bK2y5tSrMggAFwKWLB3/0zJm1h4+2Q/5PenCX59X
VDFmaOJLkNxGcVXg8x87itvqzfq/LkvDtwl9tTJmA5ccG37MPvM3803XF5OWVo0=
=aKES
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/