linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace spin_unlock

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: <20170817150736.GQ7017@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:07:36 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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, peterz@...radead.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 tip/core/rcu 4/9] completion: Replace
 spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:22:35AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:16:29 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair.  This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in
> > completion_done() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock().
> > This should be safe from a performance perspective because the lock
> > will be held only the wakeup happens really quickly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> > Cc: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > [ paulmck: Updated to use irqsave based on 0day Test Robot feedback. ]
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> > index 13fc5ae9bf2f..c9524d2d9316 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> > @@ -300,6 +300,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(try_wait_for_completion);
> >   */
> >  bool completion_done(struct completion *x)
> >  {
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> >  	if (!READ_ONCE(x->done))
> >  		return false;
> >  
> > @@ -307,14 +309,9 @@ bool completion_done(struct completion *x)
> >  	 * If ->done, we need to wait for complete() to release ->wait.lock
> >  	 * otherwise we can end up freeing the completion before complete()
> >  	 * is done referencing it.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * The RMB pairs with complete()'s RELEASE of ->wait.lock and orders
> > -	 * the loads of ->done and ->wait.lock such that we cannot observe
> > -	 * the lock before complete() acquires it while observing the ->done
> > -	 * after it's acquired the lock.
> >  	 */
> > -	smp_rmb();
> > -	spin_unlock_wait(&x->wait.lock);
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> >  	return true;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(completion_done);
> 
> For this patch:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Applied, thank you!

> But I was looking at this function, and it is a little worrisome, as it
> says it should return false if there are waiters and true otherwise.
> But it can also return false if there are no waiters and the completion
> is already done.
> 
> Basically we have:
> 
> 	wait_for_completion() {
> 		while (!done)
> 			wait();
> 		done--;
> 	}
> 
> 	complete() {
> 		done++;
> 		wake_up_waiters();
> 	}
> 
> Thus, completion_done() only returns true if a complete happened and a
> wait_for_completion has not. It does not return true if the complete
> has not yet occurred, but there are still waiters.
> 
> I looked at a couple of use cases, and this does not appear to be an
> issue, but the documentation about the completion_done() does not
> exactly fit the implementation. Should that be addressed?
> 
> Also, if complete_all() is called, then reinit_completion() must be
> called before that completion is used. The reinit_completion() has a
> comment stating this, but there's no comment by complete_all() stating
> this, which is where it really should be. I'll send a patch to fix this
> one.

But I am too late to return the favor -- good patch, though!

							Thanx, Paul