linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/2] documentation: Record reason for 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:14:43 -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 2/2] documentation: Record reason for rcu_head two-byte alignment

The __call_rcu() assertion that checks only the bottom bit of the
rcu_head pointer is a bit counter-intuitive in these days of ubiquitous
64-bit systems.  This commit therefore records the reason for this
odd alignment check, namely that m68k guarantees only two-byte alignment
despite being a 32-bit architectures.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
 .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html      | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
index ece410f40436..a4d3838130e4 100644
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
+++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html
@@ -2493,6 +2493,28 @@ or some future &ldquo;lazy&rdquo;
 variant of <tt>call_rcu()</tt> that might one day be created for
 energy-efficiency purposes.
 
+<p>
+That said, there are limits.
+RCU requires that the <tt>rcu_head</tt> structure be aligned to a
+two-byte boundary, and passing a misaligned <tt>rcu_head</tt>
+structure to one of the <tt>call_rcu()</tt> family of functions
+will result in a splat.
+It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when packing
+structures containing fields of type <tt>rcu_head</tt>.
+Why not a four-byte or even eight-byte alignment requirement?
+Because the m68k architecture provides only two-byte alignment,
+and thus acts as alignment's least common denominator.
+
+<p>
+The reason for reserving the bottom bit of pointers to
+<tt>rcu_head</tt> structures is to leave the door open to
+&ldquo;lazy&rdquo; callbacks whose invocations can safely be deferred.
+Deferring invocation could potentially have energy-efficiency
+benefits, but only if the rate of non-lazy callbacks decreases
+significantly for some important workload.
+In the meantime, reserving the bottom bit keeps this option open
+in case it one day becomes useful.
+
 <h3><a name="Performance, Scalability, Response Time, and Reliability">
 Performance, Scalability, Response Time, and Reliability</a></h3>
 
-- 
2.5.2