linux-kernel - Re: [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:   Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:43:14 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        dipankar@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        pranith kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/2] documentation: Record reason for
 rcu_head two-byte alignment

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
> >> >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K and
> >> >> > > other new macros ?
> >> >
> >> > Hmmm...  Does __alignof__(void *) give two-byte alignment on m68k,
> >> > allowing something like this?  Heh!!!  It is already there.  ;-)
> >> >
> >> > struct callback_head {
> >> >         struct callback_head *next;
> >> >         void (*func)(struct callback_head *head);
> >> > } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void *))));
> >>
> >> No, it's aligning to sizeof(void *) (4 on m68k), not __alignof__(void *).
> >
> > Right you are.  Commit 720abae3d68ae from Kirill A. Shutemov in November
> > 2015.
> >
> > Given that you haven't complained, I am guessing that this works for you.
> > If so, I can make the __call_rcu() WARN_ON() more strict.
> >
> >> > #define rcu_head callback_head
> >> >
> >> > If so, that does sound quite attractive!  Might need the WARN_ON()
> >> > anyway, to flag wild pointers if nothing else.
> >> >
> >> > Adding Geert on CC for his thoughts.
> >>
> >> __alignof__(void *)  is indeed 2 on m68k, and h8300.
> >>
> >> Note that it is 1 on crisv32!
> >
> > Gah...  ((__alignof__(void *) + 1) & ~0x1), eh?
> >
> >> It's 4 or 8 on anything else I have a cross-compiler for.
> >>
> >> $ cat a.c
> >> unsigned x = __alignof__(void *);
> >> $ for i in /opt/cross/*/*/bin/*gcc; do echo +++ $i +++; $i -c -S a.c;
> >> cat a.s; done | less
> >
> > Thank you for checking!
> >
> > Again, does the current state work for you?
> 
> Yes it does. See also your commit 1146edcbef378922 ("rcu: Loosen __call_rcu()'s
> rcu_head alignment constraint").

Understood!

But given that all architectures now provide at least four-byte alignment
for the rcu_head structure, isn't it now OK for me to tighten up __call_rcu()'s
check, for example, to this?

	WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & (sizeof(void *) - 1));

							Thanx, Paul