linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd

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: <20150614192422.GA18477@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 14 Jun 2015 21:24:22 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the
	memory hotplug code

On 06/14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > +		spin_lock(&pgd_lock); /* Implies rcu_read_lock() for the task list iteration: */
> >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Hmm, but it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU? No, no, I do not pretend I understand how it
> > actually works ;) But, say, rcu_check_callbacks() can be called from irq and
> > since spin_lock() doesn't increment current->rcu_read_lock_nesting this can lead
> > to rcu_preempt_qs()?
>
> No, RCU grace periods are still defined by 'heavy' context boundaries such as
> context switches, entering idle or user-space mode.
>
> PREEMPT_RCU is like traditional RCU, except that blocking is allowed within the
> RCU read critical section - that is why it uses a separate nesting counter
> (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting), not the preempt count.

Yes.

> But if a piece of kernel code is non-preemptible, such as a spinlocked region or
> an irqs-off region, then those are still natural RCU read lock regions, regardless
> of the RCU model, and need no additional RCU locking.

I do not think so. Yes I understand that rcu_preempt_qs() itself doesn't
finish the gp, but if there are no other rcu-read-lock holders then it
seems synchronize_rcu() on another CPU can return _before_ spin_unlock(),
this CPU no longer needs rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().

OK, I can be easily wrong, I do not really understand the implementation
of PREEMPT_RCU. Perhaps preempt_disable() can actually act as rcu_read_lock()
with the _current_ implementation. Still this doesn't look right even if
happens to work, and Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says:

11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().

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/