linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -rt] Revert "net: use synchronize_rcu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151027231559.GA4814@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 16:15:59 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	bigeasy@...utronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt] Revert "net: use synchronize_rcu_expedited()"

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:27:53AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:02 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 07:18:01AM -0700, Eric Dumazet escreveu:
> > > On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 07:31 -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Okay, yes, I like the first suggestion better as well, I've included a
> > > > patch below that does just that.  I hope you don't mind me turning it
> > > > into a Suggested-by :).
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for taking a look!
> > > >   Josh
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > @@ -6969,7 +6969,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_netdev);
> > > >  void synchronize_net(void)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	might_sleep();
> > > > -	if (rtnl_is_locked())
> > > > +	if (rtnl_is_locked() && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL))
> > > >  		synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > > >  	else
> > > >  		synchronize_rcu();
> > > 
> > > No objection from me. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > The first suggestion, with it disabled by default seems to be the most
> > flexible tho, i.e, Paul's original message plus the boot parameter line:
> > 
> > Alternatively, a boot-time option could be used:
> > 
> > int some_rt_boot_parameter = CONFIG_SYNC_NET_DEFAULT;
> > 
> >         if (rtnl_is_locked() && !some_rt_boot_parameter)
> >                 synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> >         else
> >                 synchronize_rcu();

This could be OK, but why not start with something very simple and automatic?
We can always add more knobs when and if they actually prove necessary.
In contrast, unnecessary knobs can cause confusion and might at the same time
get locked into some misbegotten userspace application, which would make the
unnecessary knob really hard to get rid of.

> > Then RT oriented kernel .config files would have CONFIG_SYNC_NET_DEFAULT
> > set to 1, while upstream would have this default to 0.
> > 
> > RT oriented kernel users could try using this in some scenarios where
> > networking is not the critical path.
> 
> Well, if synchronize_rcu_expedited() is such a problem on RT, then maybe
> a generic solution would make synchronize_rcu_expedited() to fallback
> synchronize_rcu() after boot time on RT.
> 
> Not sure why networking use of synchronize_rcu_expedited() would be
> problematic, and not the others.

>From what I can see, their testing just happened to run into this one.
Perhaps further testing will run into others, or perhaps the others are
off in code paths that should not be exercised while running RT apps.

I doubt that it is anything personal.  ;-)

> scripts/checkpatch.pl has this comment about this :
> 
> # Check for expedited grace periods that interrupt non-idle non-nohz
> # online CPUs.  These expedited can therefore degrade real-time response
> # if used carelessly, and should be avoided where not absolutely
> # needed.  It is always OK to use synchronize_rcu_expedited() and
> # synchronize_sched_expedited() at boot time (before real-time applications
> # start) and in error situations where real-time response is compromised in
> # any case.  Note that synchronize_srcu_expedited() does -not- interrupt
> # other CPUs, so don't warn on uses of synchronize_srcu_expedited().
> # Of course, nothing comes for free, and srcu_read_lock() and
> # srcu_read_unlock() do contain full memory barriers in payment for
> # synchronize_srcu_expedited() non-interruption properties.

As the author of that paragraph, I hereby declare that synchronize_net()'s
use of synchronize_rcu_expedited() clears the high absolutely-needed bar.
The point of that paragraph is to get people to think hard about alternatives,
for example, call_rcu().  However, as I understand it, call_rcu() would not
be particularly helpful in the synchronize_net() case.

							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/