linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if 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: <20190819143314.GT28441@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:33:14 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during
 unlock

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:57:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:46:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > > > Also, your commit log's point #2 is "in_irq() implies in_interrupt()
> > > > > > > which implies raising softirq will not do any wake ups."  This mention
> > > > > > > of softirq seems a bit odd, given that we are going to wake up a rcuc
> > > > > > > kthread.  Of course, this did nothing to quell my suspicions.  ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes, I should delete this #2 from the changelog since it is not very relevant
> > > > > > (I feel now). My point with #2 was that even if were to raise a softirq
> > > > > > (which we are not), a scheduler wakeup of ksoftirqd is impossible in this
> > > > > > path anyway since in_irq() implies in_interrupt().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please!  Could you also add a first-principles explanation of why
> > > > > the added condition is immune from scheduler deadlocks?
> > > > 
> > > > Sure I can add an example in the change log, however I was thinking of this
> > > > example which you mentioned:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com/
> > > > 
> > > > 	previous_reader()
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > 		do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */
> > > > 		local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > 		do_something_else();
> > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > 		do_some_other_thing();
> > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > 	current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		local_irq_disable();  /* Might be the scheduler. */
> > > > 		do_whatever();
> > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > 		do_whatever_else();
> > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must still defer reporting QS. */
> > > > 		do_whatever_comes_to_mind();
> > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > One modification of the example could be, previous_reader() could also do:
> > > > 	previous_reader()
> > > > 	{
> > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > 		do_something_that_takes_really_long(); /* causes need_qs in
> > > > 							  the unlock_special_union to be set */
> > > > 		local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > 		do_something_else();
> > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > 		do_some_other_thing();
> > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > 	}
> > > 
> > > The point you were making in that thread being, current_reader() ->
> > > rcu_read_unlock() -> rcu_read_unlock_special() would not do any wakeups
> > > because previous_reader() sets the deferred_qs bit.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I will add all of this into the changelog.
> > 
> > Examples are good, but what makes it so that there are no examples of
> > its being unsafe?
> > 
> > And a few questions along the way, some quick quiz, some more serious.
> > Would it be safe if it checked in_interrupt() instead of in_irq()?
> > If not, should the in_interrupt() in the "if" condition preceding the
> > added "else if" be changed to in_irq()?  Would it make sense to add an
> > "|| !irqs_were_disabled" do your new "else if" condition?  Would the
> > body of the "else if" actually be executed in current mainline?
> > 
> > In an attempt to be at least a little constructive, I am doing some
> > testing of this patch overnight, along with a WARN_ON_ONCE() to see if
> > that invoke_rcu_core() is ever reached.
> 
> And that WARN_ON_ONCE() never triggered in two-hour rcutorture runs of
> TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09.  (These are the TREE variants in
> CFLIST that have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
> 
> This of course raises other questions.  But first, do you see that code
> executing in your testing?

Never mind!  Idiot here forgot the "--bootargs rcutree.use_softirq"...

							Thanx, Paul