linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v5 5/6] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers use SRCU

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: <20180501154205.GM26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 May 2018 08:42:05 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Fenguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Baohong Liu <baohong.liu@...el.com>,
        Vedang Patel <vedang.patel@...el.com>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 5/6] tracepoint: Make rcuidle tracepoint callers
 use SRCU

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:23:52PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:20 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > > > > > @@ -31,6 +31,9 @@
> > > > > >  extern struct tracepoint * const __start___tracepoints_ptrs[];
> > > > > >  extern struct tracepoint * const __stop___tracepoints_ptrs[];
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +DEFINE_SRCU(tracepoint_srcu);
> > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tracepoint_srcu);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >  /* Set to 1 to enable tracepoint debug output */
> > > > > >  static const int tracepoint_debug;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -67,11 +70,16 @@ static inline void *allocate_probes(int count)
> > > > > >     return p == NULL ? NULL : p->probes;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -static void rcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > > > > +static void srcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >     kfree(container_of(head, struct tp_probes, rcu));
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static void rcu_free_old_probes(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +   call_srcu(&tracepoint_srcu, head, srcu_free_old_probes);
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, is it OK to call call_srcu() from a call_rcu() callback? I
> guess
> > > > > it would be.
> > >
> > > > It is perfectly legal, and quite a bit simpler than setting something
> > > > up to wait for both to complete concurrently.
> > >
> > > Cool. Also in this case if we call both in sequence, then I felt there
> > > could be a race to free the old data since both callbacks would try to
> do
> > > the same thing. The same thing being freeing of the same set of old
> probes
> > > which would need some synchronization between the 2 callbacks. With the
> > > chaining, since the ordering is assured there wouldn't be a question of
> > > such a race. I could add this reasoning to the changelog as well.
> 
> > Actually, as long as you have a solid happens-before between both of the
> > callbacks and the freeing, you are in good shape.  A release-acquire would
> > work fine, as would a lock acquired in both callbacks and then acquired
> > (and possibly released) before the free.
> 
> Got it, thanks. For now, if its Ok with you and others, I will leave it in
> the chained configuration. I also feel this is temporary since in the
> future if we switch to single rcu mechanism for tracepoints (srcu), then we
> could do with just a single callback.

I have no problem with chained callbacks.  Heck, I even test them in
rcutorture.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul