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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 17:12:55 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.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>,
        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 11:43:45 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Yes, that CPU's rcu_segcblist structure does need mutual exclusion in
> this case.  This is because rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs() looks not just
> at the ->tails[] pointer, but also at the pointer referenced by the
> ->tails[] pointer.  This last pointer is in an rcu_head structure, and
> not just any rcu_head structure, but one that is ready to be invoked.
> So this callback could vanish into the freelist (or worse) at any time.
> But callback invocation runs on the CPU that enqueued the callbacks
> (as long as that CPU remains online, anyway), so disabling interrupts
> suffices in mainline.
> 
> Now, we could have srcu_might_be_idle() instead acquire the sdp->lock
> to protect the structure.

Joel suggested that.

> What would be really nice is a primitive that acquires such a per-CPU
> lock and remains executing on that CPU, whether by the graces of
> preempt_disable(), local_irq_save(), migrate_disable(), or what have you.

It depends on what is required. migrate_disable() would limit you to
executing one CPU but would allow preemption. You would need a lock to
ensure exclusive access to the data structure. preempt_disable() /
local_irq_save() guarantee more than that.

Looking at the two call-sites there is no damage there is a CPU
migration after obtaining the per-CPU pointer. There could be a
CPU-migration before and after the pointer has been obtained so the code
before and after this function can not make any assumptions.

Would something like this work: ?

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
@@ -764,14 +764,15 @@ static bool srcu_might_be_idle(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
 	unsigned long t;
 	unsigned long tlast;
 
+	check_init_srcu_struct(ssp);
 	/* If the local srcu_data structure has callbacks, not idle.  */
-	local_irq_save(flags);
-	sdp = this_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
+	sdp = raw_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
+	spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
 	if (rcu_segcblist_pend_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)) {
-		local_irq_restore(flags);
+		spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
 		return false; /* Callbacks already present, so not idle. */
 	}
-	local_irq_restore(flags);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
 
 	/*
 	 * No local callbacks, so probabalistically probe global state.
@@ -851,9 +852,8 @@ static void __call_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, struct rcu_head *rhp,
 	}
 	rhp->func = func;
 	idx = srcu_read_lock(ssp);
-	local_irq_save(flags);
-	sdp = this_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
-	spin_lock_rcu_node(sdp);
+	sdp = raw_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda);
+	spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(sdp, flags);
 	rcu_segcblist_enqueue(&sdp->srcu_cblist, rhp);
 	rcu_segcblist_advance(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
 			      rcu_seq_current(&ssp->srcu_gp_seq));


That check_init_srcu_struct() is needed, because otherwise:

| BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#2, swapper/0/1
|  lock: 0xffff88803ed28ac0, .magic: 00000000, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: 0
| CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.7.0-rc6+ #81
| Call Trace:
|  dump_stack+0x71/0xa0
|  do_raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0xb0
|  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x40
|  synchronize_srcu+0x24/0xc9
|  wakeup_source_remove+0x4d/0x70
|  wakeup_source_unregister.part.0+0x9/0x40
|  device_wakeup_enable+0x99/0xc0

I'm not sure if there should be an explicit init of `wakeup_srcu' or if
an srcu function (like call_srcu()) is supposed to do it.

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian