linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] srcu: Allow use of Tiny/Tree SRCU from both process and interrupt context

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, 6 Jun 2017 14:01:54 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] srcu: Allow use of Tiny/Tree SRCU
 from both process and interrupt context



On 06/06/2017 13:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>> index 36e1f82faed1..681bf6bc04a5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>> @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@
>>  
>>  static int init_srcu_struct_fields(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>>  {
>> -	sp->srcu_lock_nesting[0] = 0;
>> -	sp->srcu_lock_nesting[1] = 0;
>> +	atomic_set(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[0], 0);
>> +	atomic_set(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[1], 0);
>>  	init_swait_queue_head(&sp->srcu_wq);
>>  	sp->srcu_gp_seq = 0;
>>  	rcu_segcblist_init(&sp->srcu_cblist);
>> @@ -86,7 +86,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(init_srcu_struct);
>>   */
>>  void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>>  {
>> -	WARN_ON(sp->srcu_lock_nesting[0] || sp->srcu_lock_nesting[1]);
>> +	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[0]) ||
>> +		atomic_read(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[1]));
>>  	flush_work(&sp->srcu_work);
>>  	WARN_ON(rcu_seq_state(sp->srcu_gp_seq));
>>  	WARN_ON(sp->srcu_gp_running);
>> @@ -97,7 +98,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cleanup_srcu_struct);
>>  
>>  /*
>>   * Counts the new reader in the appropriate per-CPU element of the
>> - * srcu_struct.  Must be called from process context.
>> + * srcu_struct.
>>   * Returns an index that must be passed to the matching srcu_read_unlock().
>>   */
>>  int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>> @@ -105,21 +106,19 @@ int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>>  	int idx;
>>  
>>  	idx = READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_idx);
>> -	WRITE_ONCE(sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx], sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx] + 1);
>> +	atomic_inc(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]);
>>  	return idx;
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_lock);
>>  
>>  /*
>>   * Removes the count for the old reader from the appropriate element of
>> - * the srcu_struct.  Must be called from process context.
>> + * the srcu_struct.
>>   */
>>  void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
>>  {
>> -	int newval = sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx] - 1;
>> -
>> -	WRITE_ONCE(sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx], newval);
>> -	if (!newval && READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_waiting))
>> +	if (atomic_dec_return_relaxed(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]) == 0 &&
>> +	    READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_waiting))
>>  		swake_up(&sp->srcu_wq);
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__srcu_read_unlock);
>> @@ -148,7 +147,7 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
>>  	idx = sp->srcu_idx;
>>  	WRITE_ONCE(sp->srcu_idx, !sp->srcu_idx);
>>  	WRITE_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_waiting, true);  /* srcu_read_unlock() wakes! */
>> -	swait_event(sp->srcu_wq, !READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]));
>> +	swait_event(sp->srcu_wq, !atomic_read(&sp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]));
>>  	WRITE_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_waiting, false); /* srcu_read_unlock() cheap. */
>>  	rcu_seq_end(&sp->srcu_gp_seq);
> 
> I'm not entirely sure this is actually needed. TINY_SRCU is !PREEMPT &&
> !SMP. So that means all we need is to be safe from IRQs.
> 
> Now, do we (want) support things like:
> 
> <IRQ>
>   srcu_read_lock();
> </IRQ>
> 
>   srcu_read_lock();
> 
>   srcu_read_unlock();
> 
> <IRQ>
>   srcu_read_unlock();
> </IRC>
> 
> 
> _OR_
> 
> do we already (or want to) mandate that SRCU usage in IRQs must be
> balanced? That is, if it is used from IRQ context it must do an equal
> amount of srcu_read_lock() and srcu_read_unlock()s?
> 
> Because if we have the balance requirement (as we do for
> preempt_disable()) then even on load-store architectures the current
> code should be sufficient (since if an interrupt does as many dec's as
> it does inc's, the actual value will not change over an interrupt, and
> our load from before the interrupt is still valid).

Good point!  So the srcutiny part should not be necessary.  I'll reply
to the other email now.

Paolo