linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/22] rcu: Fix grace-period hangs due to race with CPU offline

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: <20180628051334.GG3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:13:34 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/22] rcu: Fix grace-period hangs due to
 race with CPU offline

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:51:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Another variant, which simply skips the wakeup whever ran on an offline
> > > CPU, relying on the wakeup from rcutree_migrate_callbacks() right after
> > > the CPU really is dead.
> > 
> > Cute!  ;-)
> > 
> > And a much smaller change.
> > 
> > However, this means that if someone indirectly and erroneously causes
> > rcu_report_qs_rsp() to be invoked from an offline CPU, the result is an
> > intermittent and difficult-to-debug grace-period hang.  A lockdep splat
> > whose stack trace directly implicates the culprit is much better.
> 
> How so? We do an unconditional wakeup right after finding the offline
> cpu dead. There is only very limited code between offline being true and
> the CPU reporting in dead.

I am thinking more generally than this particular patch.  People
sometimes invoke things from places they shouldn't, for example, the
situation leading to your patch that allows use of RCU much earlier in
the CPU-online process.  It is nicer to get a splat in those situations
than a silent hang.

							Thanx, Paul