linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH RT 4/4] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting

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: <20190627180007.GA27126@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:00:07 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RT 4/4] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical
 section nesting

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 11:49:16AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 11:08 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:59:55 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I have no objection to the outlawing of a number of these sequences in
> > > mainline, but am rather pointing out that until they really are outlawed
> > > and eliminated, rcutorture must continue to test them in mainline.
> > > Of course, an rcutorture running in -rt should avoid testing things that
> > > break -rt, including these sequences.
> > 
> > We should update lockdep to complain about these sequences. That would
> > "outlaw" them in mainline. That is, after we clean up all the current
> > sequences in the code. And we also need to get Linus's approval of this
> > as I believe he was against enforcing this in the past.
> 
> Was the opposition to prohibiting some specific sequence?  It's only certain
> misnesting scenarios that are problematic.  The rcu_read_lock/
> local_irq_disable restriction can be dropped with the IPI-to-self added in
> Paul's tree.  Are there any known instances of the other two (besides
> rcutorture)?

Given the failure scenario Sebastian Siewior reported today, there
apparently are some, at least when running threaded interrupt handlers.

							Thanx, Paul