linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the tip tree

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: <20191118125046.GB74767@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:50:46 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the tip tree


* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On 2019-11-18 15:08:58 [+1100], Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> Hi,
> 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the workqueues tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/workqueue.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   5a6446626d7e ("workqueue: Convert for_each_wq to use built-in list check")
> > 
> > from the tip tree and commit:
> > 
> >   49e9d1a9faf2 ("workqueue: Add RCU annotation for pwq list walk")
> > 
> > from the workqueues tree.
> 
> urgh. So the RCU warning is introduced in commit
>    28875945ba98d ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking")
> 
> which was merged in v5.4-rc1. I enabled it around -rc7 and saw a few
> warnings including in the workqueue code. I asked about this and posted
> later a patch which was applied by Tejun. Now I see that the tip tree
> has a patch for this warning…
> I would vote for the patch in -tip since it also removes the
> assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex() macro.
> It would be nice if this could be part of v5.4 since once the RCU
> warning is enabled it will yell.

So 5a6446626d7e is currently queued up for v5.5 as part of the RCU tree. 

I can cherry pick 5a6446626d7e into tip:core/urgent if Paul and Tejun 
agree.

Thanks,

	Ingo