linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] rcu: Fix race in set and clear TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU

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: <PH0PR11MB588001E32A306F2166D55622DAF69@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Jan 2023 09:41:57 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
CC:     "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        "joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] rcu: Fix race in set and clear TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU_EXP
 bitmask

> > >On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 07:25:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:08:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h index 
> > 249c2967d9e6c..7cc4856da0817 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > @@ -594,6 +594,7 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait(void)
> >  	struct rcu_data *rdp;
> >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> >  	struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root();
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> >  	trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(), TPS("startwait"));
> >  	jiffies_stall = rcu_exp_jiffies_till_stall_check();
> > @@ -602,17 +603,17 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait(void)
> >  		if (synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait_once(1))
> >  			return;
> >  		rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp) {
> > +			raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> >  			mask = READ_ONCE(rnp->expmask);
> >  			for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, mask) {
> >  				rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> >  				if (rdp->rcu_forced_tick_exp)
> >  					continue;
> >  				rdp->rcu_forced_tick_exp = true;
> > -				preempt_disable();
> >  				if (cpu_online(cpu))
> >  					tick_dep_set_cpu(cpu, TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU_EXP);
> > -				preempt_enable();
> >  			}
> > +			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> >  		}
> >  		j = READ_ONCE(jiffies_till_first_fqs);
> >  		if (synchronize_rcu_expedited_wait_once(j + HZ))
> 
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>
>Thank you!
>
> BTW why are we forcing the tick on the whole node?
>
>Now that you mention it, that would be more precise.
>
> And shouldn't we set the tick dependency from rcu_exp_handler() instead?
>
>Because it never occurred to me to check whether this could be invoked from an interrupt handler?  ;-)
>
>But that does sound like it might be a better approach.
>
>Zqiang, would you be willing to look into this?


Yes,    and I have a question,  we forcing the tick dependency because the expedited grace period
is not end for the first time, this means that it is not to set the tick dependency every time.
if we set the tick dependency in rcu_exp_handler(), does this mean that every time the expedited
grace period starts the tick dependency will be set unconditionally ?

Thoughts ?

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>							Thanx, Paul