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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y4F5r9nLDtCrl6df@google.com> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 02:27:59 +0000 From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> To: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, frederic@...nel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Make rude RCU-Tasks work well with CPU hotplug On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:54:27PM +0800, Zqiang wrote: > Currently, for the case of num_online_cpus() <= 1, return directly, > indicates the end of current grace period and then release old data. > it's not accurate, for SMP system, when num_online_cpus() is equal > one, maybe another cpu that in offline process(after invoke > __cpu_disable()) is still in the rude RCU-Tasks critical section > holding the old data, this lead to memory corruption. > > Therefore, this commit add cpus_read_lock/unlock() before executing > num_online_cpus(). I am not sure if this is needed. The only way what you suggest can happen is if the tasks-RCU protected data is accessed after the num_online_cpus() value is decremented on the CPU going offline. However, the number of online CPUs value is changed on a CPU other than the CPU going offline. So there's no way the CPU going offline can run any code (it is already dead courtesy of CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD). So a corruption is impossible. Or, did I miss something? thanks, - Joel > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com> > --- > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h > index 4a991311be9b..08e72c6462d8 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h > @@ -1033,14 +1033,30 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work) > { > } > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work); > + > // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period. > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp) > { > + int cpu; > + struct work_struct *work; > + > + cpus_read_lock(); > if (num_online_cpus() <= 1) > - return; // Fastpath for only one CPU. > + goto end;// Fastpath for only one CPU. > > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask); > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude); > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { > + work = per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu); > + INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude); > + schedule_work_on(cpu, work); > + } > + > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > + flush_work(per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu)); > + > +end: > + cpus_read_unlock(); > } > > void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func); > -- > 2.25.1 >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists