linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page allocator for PREEMPT

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:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 16:12:16 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     joel@...lfernandes.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] rcu/tree: Skip entry into the page
 allocator for PREEMPT_RT

On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING). As of -rc3 it should complain about
> > printk() which is why it is still disabled by default.
> 
> Fixing that should be "interesting".  In particular, RCU CPU stall
> warnings rely on the raw spin lock to reduce false positives due
> to race conditions.  Some thought will be required here.

I don't get this part. Can you explain/give me an example where to look
at?

> > So assume that this is fixed and enabled then on !PREEMPT_RT it will
> > complain that you have a raw_spinlock_t acquired (the one from patch
> > 02/17) and attempt to acquire a spinlock_t in the memory allocator.
> 
> Given that the slab allocator doesn't acquire any locks until it gets
> a fair way in, wouldn't it make sense to allow a "shallow" allocation
> while a raw spinlock is held?  This would require yet another GFP_ flag,
> but that won't make all that much of a difference in the total.  ;-)

That would be one way of dealing with. But we could go back to
spinlock_t and keep the memory allocation even for RT as is. I don't see
a downside of this. And we would worry about kfree_rcu() from real
IRQ-off region once we get to it.

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > >  			bnode = (struct kfree_rcu_bulk_data *)
> > >  				__get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > >  		}

Sebastian