| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3e2dceb0-5128-28c0-454f-2a60bd5ea4e5@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:04:23 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.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, joel@...lfernandes.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 4/5] srcu: Provide polling interfaces for
Tiny SRCU grace periods
On 11/22/2020 11:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 07:57:26PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> On 11/21/2020 5:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:28:32PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2020 6:10 AM, paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
>>>>> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a need for a polling interface for SRCU grace
>>>>> periods, so this commit supplies get_state_synchronize_srcu(),
>>>>> start_poll_synchronize_srcu(), and poll_state_synchronize_srcu() for this
>>>>> purpose. The first can be used if future grace periods are inevitable
>>>>> (perhaps due to a later call_srcu() invocation), the second if future
>>>>> grace periods might not otherwise happen, and the third to check if a
>>>>> grace period has elapsed since the corresponding call to either of the
>>>>> first two.
>>>>>
>>>>> As with get_state_synchronize_rcu() and cond_synchronize_rcu(),
>>>>> the return value from either get_state_synchronize_srcu() or
>>>>> start_poll_synchronize_srcu() must be passed in to a later call to
>>>>> poll_state_synchronize_srcu().
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/20201112201547.GF3365678@moria.home.lan/
>>>>> Reported-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
>>>>> [ paulmck: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() per kernel test robot feedback. ]
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 ++
>>>>> include/linux/srcu.h | 3 +++
>>>>> include/linux/srcutiny.h | 1 +
>>>>> kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>> 4 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>>>>> index de08264..e09c0d8 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
>>>>> #define ULONG_CMP_GE(a, b) (ULONG_MAX / 2 >= (a) - (b))
>>>>> #define ULONG_CMP_LT(a, b) (ULONG_MAX / 2 < (a) - (b))
>>>>> #define ulong2long(a) (*(long *)(&(a)))
>>>>> +#define USHORT_CMP_GE(a, b) (USHRT_MAX / 2 >= (unsigned short)((a) - (b)))
>>>>> +#define USHORT_CMP_LT(a, b) (USHRT_MAX / 2 < (unsigned short)((a) - (b)))
>>>>> /* Exported common interfaces */
>>>>> void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
>>>>> index e432cc9..a0895bb 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
>>>>> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
>>>>> int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *ssp) __acquires(ssp);
>>>>> void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx) __releases(ssp);
>>>>> void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
>>>>> +unsigned long get_state_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
>>>>> +unsigned long start_poll_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
>>>>> +bool poll_state_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, unsigned long cookie);
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/srcutiny.h b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
>>>>> index fed4a2d..e9bd6fb 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/srcutiny.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
>>>>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>>>>> struct srcu_struct {
>>>>> short srcu_lock_nesting[2]; /* srcu_read_lock() nesting depth. */
>>>>> unsigned short srcu_idx; /* Current reader array element in bit 0x2. */
>>>>> + unsigned short srcu_idx_max; /* Furthest future srcu_idx request. */
>>>>> u8 srcu_gp_running; /* GP workqueue running? */
>>>>> u8 srcu_gp_waiting; /* GP waiting for readers? */
>>>>> struct swait_queue_head srcu_wq;
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>>>>> index 3bac1db..b405811 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
>>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static int init_srcu_struct_fields(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>>>>> ssp->srcu_gp_running = false;
>>>>> ssp->srcu_gp_waiting = false;
>>>>> ssp->srcu_idx = 0;
>>>>> + ssp->srcu_idx_max = 0;
>>>>> INIT_WORK(&ssp->srcu_work, srcu_drive_gp);
>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ssp->srcu_work.entry);
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> @@ -114,7 +115,7 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
>>>>> struct srcu_struct *ssp;
>>>>> ssp = container_of(wp, struct srcu_struct, srcu_work);
>>>>> - if (ssp->srcu_gp_running || !READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
>>>>> + if (ssp->srcu_gp_running || USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
>>>>> return; /* Already running or nothing to do. */
>>>>> /* Remove recently arrived callbacks and wait for readers. */
>>>>> @@ -147,14 +148,19 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
>>>>> * straighten that out.
>>>>> */
>>>>> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
>>>>> - if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
>>>>> + if (USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
>>>>
>>>> Should this be USHORT_CMP_LT ?
>>>
>>> I believe that you are correct. As is, it works but does needless
>>> grace periods.
>>>
>>>>> schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
>>>>> }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_drive_gp);
>>>>> static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + unsigned short cookie;
>>>>> +
>>>>> if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
>>>>> + cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
>>>>> + if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
>>>>> + WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking of a case which might break with this.
>>>>
>>>> Consider a scenario, where GP is in progress and kworker is right
>>>> before below point, after executing callbacks:
>>>>
>>>> void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp) {
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> We updated ->srcu_idx up here, correct? So it has bottom bit zero.
>>>
>>>> while (lh) {
>>>> <cb execution loop>
>>>> }
>>>> >>> CURRENT EXECUTION POINT
>>>
>>> Keeping in mind that Tiny SRCU always runs !PREEMPT, this must be
>>> due to an interrupt.
>>>
>> Looking more, issue can happen, even when kworker is waiting for GP
>> completion @
>>
>> swait_event_exclusive(ssp->srcu_wq,
>> !READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]));
>>
>> Other process can call call_srcu() and skip srcu_idx_max update, as
>> ssp->srcu_gp_running is true.
>
> Good point! Does this mean that additional changes are required,
> or does the fix below cover this situation as well?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
I think the current fix covers this. Just wanted to higlight that
the window is not small and a rcutorture test case might be able to
uncover the issue?
Thanks
Neeraj
>> Thanks
>> Neeraj
>>
>>>> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
>>>>
>>>> if (USHORT_CMP_LT(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
>>>> schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Now, at this instance, srcu_gp_start_if_needed() runs and samples
>>>> srcu_gp_running and returns, without updating srcu_idx_max
>>>>
>>>> static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>>>> {
>>>> if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) returns true
>>>> <snip>
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This could happen in an interrupt handler, so with you thus far.
>>>
>>>> kworker running srcu_drive_gp() resumes and returns without queueing a new
>>>> schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work); for new GP?
>>>>
>>>> Prior to this patch, call_srcu() enqueues a cb before entering
>>>> srcu_gp_start_if_needed(), and srcu_drive_gp() observes this
>>>> queuing, and schedule a work for the new GP, for this scenario.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
>>>> - if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
>>>> + if (USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
>>>> schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
>>>>
>>>> So, should the "cookie" calculation and "srcu_idx_max" setting be moved
>>>> outside of ssp->srcu_gp_running check and maybe return the same cookie to
>>>> caller and use that as the returned cookie from
>>>> start_poll_synchronize_srcu() ?
>>>>
>>>> srcu_gp_start_if_needed()
>>>> cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
>>>> if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
>>>> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
>>>> if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
>>>> <snip>
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I believe that you are quite correct, thank you!
>>>
>>> But rcutorture does have a call_srcu() (really a ->call, but same if SRCU)
>>> in a timer handler. The race window is quite narrow, so testing it might
>>> be a challenge...
>>>
>>> This is what I end up with:
>>>
>>> static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>>> {
>>> unsigned short cookie;
>>>
>>> cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
>>> if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
>>> WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
>>> if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
>>> if (likely(srcu_init_done))
>>> schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
>>> else if (list_empty(&ssp->srcu_work.entry))
>>> list_add(&ssp->srcu_work.entry, &srcu_boot_list);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Does that look plausible?
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanx, Paul
>>>
>>
>> --
>> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
>> the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists