linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] iommu/s390: Use RCU to allow concurrent domain

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: <Y1u8zrKUh2S/J6LM@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:28:14 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
        gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
        svens@...ux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] iommu/s390: Use RCU to allow concurrent domain_list
 iteration

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:29:00AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:

> > rcu_head = kzalloc(rcu_head, GFP_NOWAIT, GFP_NOWARN)
> > if (!rcu_head)
> >    synchronize_rcu()
> > else
> >    call_rcu(rcu_head)
> > 
> > And then call kmem_cache_free() from the rcu callback
> 
> Hmm, maybe a stupid question but why can't I just put the rcu_head in
> struct s390_domain and then do a call_rcu() on that with a callback
> that does:
> 
> 	dma_cleanup_tables(s390_domain->dma_table);
> 	kfree(s390_domain);
> 
> I.e. the rest of the current s390_domain_free().
> Then I don't have to worry about failing to allocate the rcu_head and
> it's simple enough. Basically just do the actual freeing of the
> s390_domain via call_rcu().

Oh, if you never reallocate the dma_table then yes that is a good idea

> Or do you mean to use a kref that is taken by RCU readers together with
> rcu_read_lock() and dropped at rcu_read_unlock() such that during the
> RCU read critical sections the refcount can't fall below 1 and the
> domain is actually freed once we have a) put the initial reference
> during s390_domain_free() and b) put all temporary references on
> exiting the RCU read critical sections?

Yes, this is a common pattern. Usually you want to optimize away the
global lock that protects, say, a linked list and then accept a local
lock/refcount inside the object

Jason