linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] rcu-tasks: Make ksoftirqd provide RCU Tasks quiescent states

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]

Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 12:15:39 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...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,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 3/4] rcu-tasks: Make ksoftirqd provide RCU
 Tasks quiescent states

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 02:49:12AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2021 07:21:10 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 03:54:17PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:27:46 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Heavy networking load can cause a CPU to execute continuously and
> > > > indefinitely within ksoftirqd, in which case there will be no voluntary
> > > > task switches and thus no RCU-tasks quiescent states.  This commit
> > > > therefore causes the exiting rcu_softirq_qs() to provide an RCU-tasks
> > > > quiescent state.
> > > > 
> > > > This of course means that __do_softirq() and its callers cannot be
> > > > invoked from within a tracing trampoline.
> > > 
> > > I would like to confirm that you mean "tracing trampoline" here is
> > > the code on the trampoline buffer, not the handler code which is
> > > invoked from the trampoline buffer but it is protected by preempt_disable(),
> > > am I understand correctly?
> > 
> > Maybe?  ;-)
> > 
> > If the handler code is invoked from the trampoline buffer, but
> > returns somewhere else, then it is OK for the handler code to invoke
> > __do_softirq() or its callers.
> > 
> > In addition, if the handler code is invoked from the trampoline buffer is
> > guaranteed never to be running in the context of the ksoftirqd kthread,
> > then it is also OK for the handler code to invoke __do_softirq() or
> > its callers.
> > 
> > Otherwise, if the handler code might return back into the trampoline
> > buffer and if that code might be running in the context of the ksoftirqd
> > kthread, invoking __do_softirq() or one of its callers could result in
> > the trampoline buffer no longer being there when it was returned to.
> 
> Hmm, the optprobe may be involved in this case. It always return to
> the trampoline and handler does not disable irqs (only disable preempt).
> BTW, what will call the __do_softirq()? Is hardirq safe?

As long as your code does not explicitly call __do_softirq() or one of
its callers, you should be OK.

Let's suppose that your code takes a hardirq from ksoftirqd context.
In that case, the return-from-irq path will notice the ksoftirqd
context and refrain from calling __do_softirqd().  Life is good.
(See the invoke_softirq() function for more detail.)

On the other hand, if your code takes a hardirq from some non-ksoftirqd
context, and if this hardirq decides to handle softirqs on exit
from the hardirq, the "__this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd) == current" within
__do_softirq() will fail, so that rcu_softirq_qs() will not be called.
Life is still good.

Either way, as long as your handler does not explicitly invoke
__do_softirq(), life is good.

The bad case is when you instrument a function that is invoked in the
context of a ksoftirqd kthread, and the corresponding handler (or
some function that the handler explicitly calls) directly invokes
__do_softirq() or one of its caller.

Is that more helpful?

							Thanx, Paul