linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page allocator

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: <20200716152027.GQ9247@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 08:20:27 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcu/tree: Drop the lock before entering to page
 allocator

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 04:14:21PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 15:14:49 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > My concern is that some critical bug will show up at some point
> > that requires double-argument kfree_rcu() be invoked while holding
> > a raw spinlock.  (Single-argument kfree_rcu() must sometimes invoke
> > synchronize_rcu(), so it can never be invoked in any state forbidding
> > invoking schedule().)
> 
> So you are saying as of today we are good but in near future the
> following
>    synchronize_rcu() -> kfree_rcu()
> 
> may be needed?

You lost me on this one.  I am instead concerned that something like this
might be needed on short notice:

	raw_spin_lock(&some_lock);
	kfree_rcu(some_pointer, some_field_offset);

In contrast, single-argument kfree_rcu() cannot be invoked from any
environment where synchronize_rcu() cannot be invoked.

> > Yes, dropping to a plain spinlock would be simple in the here and now,
> > but experience indicates that it is only a matter of time, and that when
> > that time comes it will come as an emergency.
> 
> Hmmm.

I point out the call_rcu() experience.

> > One approach would be to replace the "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)"
> > with some sort of check for being in a context where spinlock acquisition
> > is not legal.  What could be done along those lines?
> 
> I would rethink the whole concept how this is implemented now and give
> it another try. The code does not look pretty and is looking
> complicated. The RT covering of this part then just added a simple
> return because nothing else seemed to be possible. This patch here
> looks like another duct tape attempt to avoid a warning.

In addition to the possibility of invocation from BH?

							Thanx, Paul