linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] task: RCU protect tasks on the runqueue

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190903074718.GT2386@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:47:18 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] task: RCU protect tasks on the runqueue

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:41:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:52:01PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 2b037f195473..802958407369 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> 
> > @@ -3857,7 +3857,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
> >  
> >  	if (likely(prev != next)) {
> >  		rq->nr_switches++;
> > -		rq->curr = next;
> > +		rcu_assign_pointer(rq->curr, next);
> >  		/*
> >  		 * The membarrier system call requires each architecture
> >  		 * to have a full memory barrier after updating
> 
> This one is sad; it puts a (potentially) expensive barrier in here. And
> I'm not sure I can explain the need for it. That is, we've not changed
> @next before this and don't need to 'publish' it as such.
> 
> Can we use RCU_INIT_POINTER() or simply WRITE_ONCE(), here?

That is, I'm thinking we qualify for point 3 (both a and b) of
RCU_INIT_POINTER().