linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] srcu: Use local_lock() for per-CPU struct srcu

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: <20200520182800.sdp6t6bgbhn4kkqk@linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 20:28:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] srcu: Use local_lock() for per-CPU struct srcu_data
 access

On 2020-05-20 13:42:59 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Joel,

> For pointer stability, can we just use get_local_ptr() and put_local_ptr()
> instead of adding an extra lock? This keeps the pointer stable while keeping
> the section preemptible on -rt. And we already have a lock in rcu_data, I
> prefer not to add another lock if possible.

What is this get_local_ptr() doing? I can't find it anywhere…

> I wrote a diff below with get_local_ptr() (just build tested). Does this
> solve your issue?

see below.

> > I remember Paul looked at that patch a few years ago and he said that
> > that disabling interrupts here is important and matches the other part
> > instance where the interrupts are disabled. Looking at it now, it seems
> > that there is just pointer stability but I can't tell if
> > rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs() needs more than just this.
> 
> Which 'other part' are you referring to? Your patch removed local_irq_save()
> from other places as well right?

The patch converted hunks.

> thanks,
> 
>  - Joel
> 
> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 8ff71e5d0fe8b..5f49919205317 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -778,13 +778,17 @@ static bool srcu_might_be_idle(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>  	unsigned long tlast;
>  
>  	/* If the local srcu_data structure has callbacks, not idle.  */
> -	local_irq_save(flags);
> -	sdp = this_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
> +	sdp = get_local_ptr(ssp->sda);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(sdp, flags);

You acquire the node lock which was not acquired before. Is that okay?
How is get_local_ptr() different to raw_cpu_ptr()?

>  	if (rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)) {
> -		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
> +		put_local_ptr(sdp);
>  		return false; /* Callbacks already present, so not idle. */
>  	}
> -	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
> +	put_local_ptr(sdp);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * No local callbacks, so probabalistically probe global state.

Sebastian