linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/16] rcu/nocb: Only (re-)initialize segcblist when needed on CPU up

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: <20210128214524.GV2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:45:24 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] rcu/nocb: Only (re-)initialize segcblist when
 needed on CPU up

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:34:13PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 11:12:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:12:10PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Simply checking if the segcblist is enabled is enough to know if we
> > > need to initialize it or not. It's safe to check within hotplug
> > > machine.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > > Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > > Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
> > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> > 
> > Hmmm...
> > 
> > At the start of a CPU-hotplug operation, an incoming CPU's callback
> > list can be in a number of states:
> > 
> > 1.	Disabled and empty.  This is the case when the boot CPU has
> > 	not done call_rcu(), when a non-boot CPU first comes online,
> > 	and when a non-offloaded CPU comes back online.  In this case,
> > 	it is permissible to initialize ->cblist.  Because either the
> > 	CPU is currently running with interrupts disabled (boot CPU)
> > 	or is not yet running at all (other CPUs), it is not necessary
> > 	to acquire ->nocb_lock.
> > 
> > 2.	Disabled and non-empty.  This is the case when the boot CPU has
> > 	done call_rcu().  It is not permissible to initialize ->cblist
> > 	because doing so will leak any callbacks posted by early boot
> > 	invocations of call_rcu().
> 
> I don't think that's possible. In this case __call_rcu() has called
> rcu_segcblist_init() and has enabled the segcblist.

You are right, rcu_segcblist_init() would have been called in that
case and it has: rcu_segcblist_set_flags(rsclp, SEGCBLIST_ENABLED).

> > 	Test for the possibility of leaking by building with
> > 	CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y and booting with rcupdate.rcu_self_test=1.
> > 
> > 3.	Enabled, whether empty or not.  This is the case when an
> > 	offloaded CPU comes back online.  This is the only case where
> > 	the ->nocb_lock must be held to modify ->cblist.  However,
> > 	it is not necessarily to modify ->cblist because the rcuoc
> > 	kthread is on the job.
> > 
> > So I believe that it is necessary to check for both disabled and empty.
> > But don't take my word for it!  Build with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y and boot
> > with rcupdate.rcu_self_test=1.  ;-)
> 
> I'm trying that :-)

Even better!

							Thanx, Paul