linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in _

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: <ada10dc9-6cab-e189-5289-6f9d3ff8fed2@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 20:53:18 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        christian@...uner.io, davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop


On 2019/7/26 下午8:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:00:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/26 下午7:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:25:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/25 下午9:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> Exactly, and that's the reason actually I use synchronize_rcu() there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the concern is still the possible synchronize_expedited()?
>>>>> I think synchronize_srcu_expedited.
>>>>>
>>>>> synchronize_expedited sends lots of IPI and is bad for realtime VMs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can I do this
>>>>>> on through another series on top of the incoming V2?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>> The question is this: is this still a gain if we switch to the
>>>>> more expensive srcu? If yes then we can keep the feature on,
>>>> I think we only care about the cost on srcu_read_lock() which looks pretty
>>>> tiny form my point of view. Which is basically a READ_ONCE() + WRITE_ONCE().
>>>>
>>>> Of course I can benchmark to see the difference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> if not we'll put it off until next release and think
>>>>> of better solutions. rcu->srcu is just a find and replace,
>>>>> don't see why we need to defer that. can be a separate patch
>>>>> for sure, but we need to know how well it works.
>>>> I think I get here, let me try to do that in V2 and let's see the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>
>> It looks to me for tree rcu, its srcu_read_lock() have a mb() which is too
>> expensive for us.
> I will try to ponder using vq lock in some way.
> Maybe with trylock somehow ...


Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks 
last try).


>
>
>> If we just worry about the IPI,
> With synchronize_rcu what I would worry about is that guest is stalled


Can this synchronize_rcu() be triggered by guest? If yes, there are 
several other MMU notifiers that can block. Is vhost something special here?


> because system is busy because of other guests.
> With expedited it's the IPIs...
>

The current synchronize_rcu()  can force a expedited grace period:

void synchronize_rcu(void)
{
         ...
         if (rcu_blocking_is_gp())
return;
         if (rcu_gp_is_expedited())
synchronize_rcu_expedited();
else
wait_rcu_gp(call_rcu);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);


>> can we do something like in
>> vhost_invalidate_vq_start()?
>>
>>          if (map) {
>>                  /* In order to avoid possible IPIs with
>>                   * synchronize_rcu_expedited() we use call_rcu() +
>>                   * completion.
>> */
>> init_completion(&c.completion);
>>                  call_rcu(&c.rcu_head, vhost_finish_vq_invalidation);
>> wait_for_completion(&c.completion);
>>                  vhost_set_map_dirty(vq, map, index);
>> vhost_map_unprefetch(map);
>>          }
>>
>> ?
> Why would that be faster than synchronize_rcu?


No faster but no IPI.


>
>
>>> There's one other thing that bothers me, and that is that
>>> for large rings which are not physically contiguous
>>> we don't implement the optimization.
>>>
>>> For sure, that can wait, but I think eventually we should
>>> vmap large rings.
>>
>> Yes, worth to try. But using direct map has its own advantage: it can use
>> hugepage that vmap can't
>>
>> Thanks
> Sure, so we can do that for small rings.


Yes, that's possible but should be done on top.

Thanks