linux-kernel - Re: [patch v5] mm: lru_cache_disable: replace work queue synchronization with synchronize

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: <20220310182326.5b375da6b86e95f7e71acd90@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 18:23:26 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v5] mm: lru_cache_disable: replace work queue
 synchronization with synchronize_rcu

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:22:12 -0300 Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com> wrote:

> 
> On systems that run FIFO:1 applications that busy loop,
> any SCHED_OTHER task that attempts to execute
> on such a CPU (such as work threads) will not
> be scheduled, which leads to system hangs.
> 
> Commit d479960e44f27e0e52ba31b21740b703c538027c ("mm: disable LRU
> pagevec during the migration temporarily") relies on
> queueing work items on all online CPUs to ensure visibility
> of lru_disable_count.
> 
> To fix this, replace the usage of work items with synchronize_rcu,
> which provides the same guarantees.
> 
> Readers of lru_disable_count are protected by either disabling
> preemption or rcu_read_lock:
> 
> preempt_disable, local_irq_disable  [bh_lru_lock()]
> rcu_read_lock                       [rt_spin_lock CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
> preempt_disable                     [local_lock !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT]
> 
> Since v5.1 kernel, synchronize_rcu() is guaranteed to wait on
> preempt_disable() regions of code. So any CPU which sees
> lru_disable_count = 0 will have exited the critical
> section when synchronize_rcu() returns.

Permitting a realtime thread to hang the entire system warrants a
-stable backport, I think.  That's just rude.

I'm inclined to send this upstream for 5.18-rc1, with that -stable tag.

But if agreeable, how far can we backport this?  Paul, do we know which
kernel version(s) have the desired synchronize_rcu() behaviour?

Now, we don't want -stable people backporting this into kernels where
synchronize_rcu() doesn't do what we want it to do.  So a sneaky thing
we could do is to identify the change which added the desired
synchronize_rcu() behaviour and make this patch Fixes:thatpatch.  That
should prevent people from backporting it too far.