linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu

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: <3b4c324abdabd12d7bd5346c18411e667afe6a55.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 05 Nov 2020 18:02:49 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier

On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 22:22 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:33:25PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:26:14 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in secondary_start_kernel() is not early
> > > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> > > splats as follows:
> > > 
> > >  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > >  -----------------------------
> > >  kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied to arm64 (for-next/fixes), thanks!
> > 
> > [1/1] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
> >       https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/ce3d31ad3cac
> 
> Hmm, this patch has caused a regression in the case that we fail to
> online a CPU because it has incompatible CPU features and so we park it
> in cpu_die_early(). We now get an endless spew of RCU stalls because the
> core will never come online, but is being tracked by RCU. So I'm tempted
> to revert this and live with the lockdep warning while we figure out a
> proper fix.
> 
> What's the correct say to undo rcu_cpu_starting(), given that we cannot
> invoke the full hotplug machinery here? Is it correct to call
> rcutree_dying_cpu() on the bad CPU and then rcutree_dead_cpu() from the
> CPU doing cpu_up(), or should we do something else?
It looks to me that rcu_report_dead() does the opposite of rcu_cpu_starting(),
so lift rcu_report_dead() out of CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU and use it there to rewind,
Paul?