linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT

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: <20b9051fe47b7068ed3496bd7f5d417b1af69e3a.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:23:37 -0500
From:   Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting
 on RT

On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 16:40 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> [bigeasy: remove 'preempt_disable(); local_bh_disable(); preempt_enable();
>  local_bh_enable();' from the examples because this works on RT now. ]

Does it actually work?  If preemption is disabled during local_bh_disable,
softirq_ctrl.lock won't be taken.  If you then get preempted between the
preempt_enable() and the local_bh_enable(), and another task tries to do
local_bh_disable(), won't it successfully get softirq_ctrl.lock, add to
softirq_ctrl.cnt, and proceed right into the critical section?

Or am I missing something?

-Scott