linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/2] rcu: Remove ->dynticks_nmi_nesting from struct 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]

Message-Id: <20180622132843.GN3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:28:43 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com, luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] rcu: Remove ->dynticks_nmi_nesting from struct
 rcu_dynticks

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:49:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 01:05:22AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:47:20PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > >> Hello folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm careful in saying that ->dynticks_nmi_nesting can be removed but I
> > > >> think it's possible since the only thing we are interested in with
> > > >> regard to ->dynticks_nesting or ->dynticks_nmi_nesting is whether rcu is
> > > >> idle or not.
> > > >
> > > > Please keep in mind that NMIs cannot be masked, which means that the
> > > > rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit() pair can be invoked at any point in
> > > > the process, between any consecutive pair of instructions.  The saving
> > 
> > And yes, I should have looked at this patch more closely before replying.
> > But please see below.
> > 
> > > I believe I understand what NMI is and why you introduced
> > > ->dynticks_nmi_nesting. Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Perhaps the fact that there are architectures that can enter interrupt
> > handlers and never leave them when the CPU is non-idle.  One example of
> > this is the usermode upcalls in the comment that you removed.
> 
> I spent some time tonight and last night trying to understand this concept of
> never leaving an interrupt, I hope you don't mind me asking this dumb
> question... perhaps I will learn something : Could you let me know how is it
> possible that an interrupt never exits?
> 
> Typically an interrupt never exiting sounds like a hard-lockup. This is how
> hardlock detector works: Since regular interrupts in linux can't nest, the
> hardlockup detector checks if hrtimer interrupts are being handled and if
> not, then it throws a splat, panics the kernel etc. So I am a bit troubled by
> this interrupt never exiting concept..
> 
> Further since an interrupt is an atomic context, it cannot sleep or schedule
> into usermode so how are these upcalls handled from the interrupt?

It has been some years since I traced the code flow, but what happened
back then is that it switches itself from an interrupt handler to not
without actually returning from the interrupt.  This can only happen when
interrupting a non-idle process, thankfully, and RCU's dyntick-idle code
relies on this restriction.  If I remember correctly, the code ends up
executing in the context of the interrupted process, but it has been some
years, so please apply appropriate skepticism.

Please take a look at the "Interrupts and NMIs" section of the file
Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.html for a bit
more information.

> Lastly, can you point me to an example how the rcu_nmi_enter/exit() pair can go
> out sync? That is they aren't paired and nested properly? In my mind they
> always should be but I may be missing the usecase. I'm happy to try and
> reproduce and trace this if you can let me know how to so that I can study
> it better. 

I have never seen NMIs be unpaired or improperly nested.  However,
given that rcu_irq_enter() invokes rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_irq_exit()
invokes rcu_nmi_exit(), it is definitely the case that rcu_nmi_enter()
and rcu_nmi_exit() need to deal with unpaired and improperly nested
invocations.

So why this function-call structure?  Well, you see, NMI handlers can
take what appear to RCU to be normal interrupts...

(And I just added that fun fact to Requirements.html.)

> Thanks a lot Paul for your help,

Please feel free to take a look at Requirements.html.  There are a lot
more surprising RCU facts of life recorded there.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul