linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Make rude RCU-Tasks work well with CPU hotplug

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <PH0PR11MB588009DA52C17BAE7388F99EDA119@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 26 Nov 2022 02:43:59 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
CC:     "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...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?

Hi joel

Suppose the system has two cpus

	CPU0                                                                     CPU1
					     cpu_stopper_thread
                                                                                  take_cpu_down
						    __cpu_disable
							dec __num_online_cpus 
 rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp                                      cpuhp_invoke_callback
	num_online_cpus() == 1
		return;
        
when __num_online_cpus == 1, the CPU1 not completely offline.

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>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
>