linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu-refcount: relax limit on percpu_ref

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:36:41 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu-refcount: relax limit on percpu_ref_reinit()

Hello, Ming.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:51:49AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > That doesn't make sense to me.  How is synchronize_rcu() gonna change
> > anything there?
> 
> As you saw in the new post, synchronize_rcu() isn't used for avoiding
> the race. Instead, it is done by grabbing one extra ref on atomic part.

This is layering violation.  It just isn't a good idea to depend on
percpu_ref internal implementation details like this.

> > 1. Callers of percpu_ref must not depend on what internal
> >    synchronization construct percpu_ref uses.  Again, percpu_ref
> >    doesn't even use regular RCU.
> > 
> > 2. If there is already an outer RCU protection around ref operation,
> >    that RCU critical section can and should be used for
> >    synchronization, not percpu_ref.
> 
> I guess the above doesn't apply any more because there isn't new 
> synchronize_rcu() introduced in my new post.

It still does.  The problem is that what you're doing creates
dependencies on percpu_ref's implementation details - how it
guarantees the mode transition visibility using what sort of
synchronization construct.

> > Right?  There isn't much wheel to reinvent here and using percpu_ref
> > for the above is likely already incorrect due to the different RCU
> > type being used.
> 
> No RCU story any more, :-)
> 
> It might work, but still a reinvented wheel since perpcu-refcount does
> provide same function. Not mention the inter-action between the two
> mechanism may have to be considered.

Why would the two independent mechanisms interact with each other?
What's problematic is entangling two mechanisms in an implementation
dependent way.

> Also there is still cost introduced in WRITER side, and the
> synchronize_rcu() often takes a bit long, especially there might be lots
> of namespaces, each need to run one synchronize_rcu(). We have learned
> lessons in converting to blk-mq for scsi, in which synchronize_rcu()
> introduces long delay in booting.

You're already paying that latency.  It's not like percpu_ref can make
it happen magically without paying the same cost.  You also can easily
overlay the two grace periods as the percpu_ref part can be
asynchronous (if you still care about it).  But, from what I've read
till now, it doesn't even look like you'd need to do anything with
percpu_ref if you all you need to do is shutting down issue of new
commands.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun