linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/10] documentation: Document illegality of 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: <1460474301-22998-5-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:18:16 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	bobby.prani@...il.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/10] documentation: Document illegality of call_rcu() from offline CPUs

There is already a blanket statement about no member of RCU's API
being legal from an offline CPU, but add an explicit note where it
states that it is illegal to invoke call_rcu() from an NMI handler.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html  | 3 ++-
 Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx | 3 ++-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
index 2a56031bfdd4..01e12b86e81f 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
@@ -1354,7 +1354,8 @@ situations where neither <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> nor
 <tt>synchronize_rcu_expedited()</tt> would be legal,
 including within preempt-disable code, <tt>local_bh_disable()</tt> code,
 interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers.
-However, even <tt>call_rcu()</tt> is illegal within NMI handlers.
+However, even <tt>call_rcu()</tt> is illegal within NMI handlers
+and from offline CPUs.
 The callback function (<tt>remove_gp_cb()</tt> in this case) will be
 executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the
 Linux kernel,
diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx
index 98da30ca84c4..3355f1f9384c 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.htmlx
@@ -1513,7 +1513,8 @@ situations where neither <tt>synchronize_rcu()</tt> nor
 <tt>synchronize_rcu_expedited()</tt> would be legal,
 including within preempt-disable code, <tt>local_bh_disable()</tt> code,
 interrupt-disable code, and interrupt handlers.
-However, even <tt>call_rcu()</tt> is illegal within NMI handlers.
+However, even <tt>call_rcu()</tt> is illegal within NMI handlers
+and from offline CPUs.
 The callback function (<tt>remove_gp_cb()</tt> in this case) will be
 executed within softirq (software interrupt) environment within the
 Linux kernel,
-- 
2.5.2