linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/4] Forbid static SRCU use in modules

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]

Date:   Sun, 7 Apr 2019 16:41:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        amd-gfx <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/4] Forbid static SRCU use in modules


----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Joel Fernandes, Google joel@...lfernandes.org wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 03:26:16PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, paulmck paulmck@...ux.ibm.com wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 06:39:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> > 
>> > [ . . . ]
>> > 
>> >> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > index f8f6f04c4453..c2d919a1566e 100644
>> >> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> >> > > @@ -338,6 +338,10 @@
>> >> > >  		KEEP(*(__tracepoints_ptrs)) /* Tracepoints: pointer array */ \
>> >> > >  		__stop___tracepoints_ptrs = .;				\
>> >> > >  		*(__tracepoints_strings)/* Tracepoints: strings */	\
>> >> > > +		. = ALIGN(8);						\
>> >> > > +		__start___srcu_struct = .;				\
>> >> > > +		*(___srcu_struct_ptrs)					\
>> >> > > +		__end___srcu_struct = .;				\
>> >> > >  	}								\
>> >> > 
>> >> > This vmlinux linker modification is not needed. I tested without it and srcu
>> >> > torture works fine with rcutorture built as a module. Putting further prints
>> >> > in kernel/module.c verified that the kernel is able to find the srcu structs
>> >> > just fine. You could squash the below patch into this one or apply it on top
>> >> > of the dev branch.
>> >> 
>> >> Good point, given that otherwise FORTRAN named common blocks would not
>> >> work.
>> >> 
>> >> But isn't one advantage of leaving that stuff in the RO_DATA_SECTION()
>> >> macro that it can be mapped read-only?  Or am I suffering from excessive
>> >> optimism?
>> > 
>> > And to answer the other question, in the case where I am suffering from
>> > excessive optimism, it should be a separate commit.  Please see below
>> > for the updated original commit thus far.
>> > 
>> > And may I have your Tested-by?
>> 
>> Just to confirm: does the cleanup performed in the modules going
>> notifier end up acting as a barrier first before freeing the memory ?
>> If not, is it explicitly stated that a barrier must be issued before
>> module unload ?
>> 
> 
> You mean rcu_barrier? It is mentioned in the documentation that this is the
> responsibility of the module writer to prevent delays for all modules.

It's a srcu barrier yes. Considering it would be a barrier specific to the
srcu domain within that module, I don't see how it would cause delays for
"all" modules if we implicitly issue the barrier on module unload. What
am I missing ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com