| 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: <20201221212805.GA28289@pc638.lan>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 22:28:05 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu-tasks: add RCU-tasks self tests
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:45:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:29:06AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 07:45:39PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:18:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 04:38:09PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 03:29:55PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ . . . ]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2.20.1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, much improved!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > See below the v3 version. I hope i fixed all comments :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From 06f7adfd84cbb1994d0e2693ee9dcdfd272a9bd0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > From: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 21:27:32 +0100
> > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 1/1] rcu-tasks: Add RCU-tasks self tests
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This commit adds self tests for early-boot use of RCU-tasks grace periods.
> > > > > > It tests all three variants (Rude, Tasks, and Tasks Trace) and covers
> > > > > > both synchronous (e.g., synchronize_rcu_tasks()) and asynchronous (e.g.,
> > > > > > call_rcu_tasks()) grace-period APIs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Self-tests are run only in kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Much better!
> > > > >
> > > > > I pulled this in, but made one small additional change. Please let me
> > > > > know if this is problematic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 93372198b5c9efdfd288aa3b3ee41c1f90866886
> > > > > Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > > > Date: Wed Dec 9 21:27:32 2020 +0100
> > > > >
> > > > > rcu-tasks: Add RCU-tasks self tests
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit adds self tests for early-boot use of RCU-tasks grace periods.
> > > > > It tests all three variants (Rude, Tasks, and Tasks Trace) and covers
> > > > > both synchronous (e.g., synchronize_rcu_tasks()) and asynchronous (e.g.,
> > > > > call_rcu_tasks()) grace-period APIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Self-tests are run only in kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > index 3660755..35a2cd5 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > @@ -1224,6 +1224,40 @@ void show_rcu_tasks_gp_kthreads(void)
> > > > > }
> > > > > #endif /* #ifndef CONFIG_TINY_RCU */
> > > > >
> > > > > +struct rcu_tasks_test_desc {
> > > > > + struct rcu_head rh;
> > > > > + const char *name;
> > > > > + bool notrun;
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static struct rcu_tasks_test_desc tests[] = {
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks()",
> > > > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_RCU),
> > > > > + },
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks_rude()",
> > > > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_RUDE_RCU),
> > > > > + },
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks_trace()",
> > > > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU)
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void test_rcu_tasks_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct rcu_tasks_test_desc *rttd =
> > > > > + container_of(rhp, struct rcu_tasks_test_desc, rh);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pr_info("Callback from %s invoked.\n", rttd->name);
> > > > That is fine! We can output the name instead of executed counter.
> > > > Doing so makes it completely clear who triggers the callback.
> > >
> > > And we also need to make it not trigger when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n.
> > > While in the area, we might as well leave anything that is needed only
> > > by CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y undefined when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n.
> > >
> > > How about the following?
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > commit f7a1ac0d3504e0518745da7f98573c1b13587f3e
> > > Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > Date: Wed Dec 9 21:27:32 2020 +0100
> > >
> > > rcu-tasks: Add RCU-tasks self tests
> > >
> > > This commit adds self tests for early-boot use of RCU-tasks grace periods.
> > > It tests all three variants (Rude, Tasks, and Tasks Trace) and covers
> > > both synchronous (e.g., synchronize_rcu_tasks()) and asynchronous (e.g.,
> > > call_rcu_tasks()) grace-period APIs.
> > >
> > > Self-tests are run only in kernels built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > [ paulmck: Handle CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n and identify test cases' callbacks. ]
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > index 3660755..af7c194 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > @@ -1224,6 +1224,82 @@ void show_rcu_tasks_gp_kthreads(void)
> > > }
> > > #endif /* #ifndef CONFIG_TINY_RCU */
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> > > +struct rcu_tasks_test_desc {
> > > + struct rcu_head rh;
> > > + const char *name;
> > > + bool notrun;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static struct rcu_tasks_test_desc tests[] = {
> > > + {
> > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks()",
> > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_RCU),
> > > + },
> > > + {
> > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks_rude()",
> > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_RUDE_RCU),
> > > + },
> > > + {
> > > + .name = "call_rcu_tasks_trace()",
> > > + /* If not defined, the test is skipped. */
> > > + .notrun = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU)
> > > + }
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static void test_rcu_tasks_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rcu_tasks_test_desc *rttd =
> > > + container_of(rhp, struct rcu_tasks_test_desc, rh);
> > > +
> > > + pr_info("Callback from %s invoked.\n", rttd->name);
> > > +
> > > + rttd->notrun = true;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests(void)
> > > +{
> > > + pr_info("Running RCU-tasks wait API self tests\n");
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > > + synchronize_rcu_tasks();
> > > + call_rcu_tasks(&tests[0].rh, test_rcu_tasks_callback);
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RUDE_RCU
> > > + synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude();
> > > + call_rcu_tasks_rude(&tests[1].rh, test_rcu_tasks_callback);
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU
> > > + synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace();
> > > + call_rcu_tasks_trace(&tests[2].rh, test_rcu_tasks_callback);
> > > +#endif
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int rcu_tasks_verify_self_tests(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) {
> > > + if (!tests[i].notrun) { // still hanging.
> > > + pr_err("%s has been failed.\n", tests[i].name);
> > > + ret = -1;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + WARN_ON(1);
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +late_initcall(rcu_tasks_verify_self_tests);
> > > +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
> > > +static void rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests(void) { }
> > > +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
> > > +
> > > void __init rcu_init_tasks_generic(void)
> > > {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > > @@ -1237,6 +1313,9 @@ void __init rcu_init_tasks_generic(void)
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU
> > > rcu_spawn_tasks_trace_kthread();
> > > #endif
> > > +
> > > + // Run the self-tests.
> > > + rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests();
> > > }
> > >
> > > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC */
> > That makes sense to me. I missed that point. There is no
> > reason in wasting of extra cycles which affect a boot up
> > time if built without CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
>
> If CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n, then rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests is an empty
> function. So the compiler should be able to eliminate all runtime
> overhead from rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests() when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n.
>
> Or am I missing your point?
>
That is correct, i mean your description. I wanted to underline
that the late_initcall(rcu_tasks_verify_self_tests); was called
even for CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=n, what would affect a boot time with
disabled option. Of-course that extra time would be negligible.
>From the other hand, why we should introduce it if it can be
avoided.
Your last change fixes that :)
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists