linux-kernel - Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus test)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230113195431.GH4028633@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:54:31 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "parri.andrea" <parri.andrea@...il.com>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, npiggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, akiyks <akiyks@...il.com>,
        dlustig <dlustig@...dia.com>, joel <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        urezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        quic_neeraju <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        frederic <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Internal vs. external barriers (was: Re: Interesting LKMM litmus
 test)

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:38:17AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 01:57:16PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > I will risk sharing the intuition behind the rcu-order counting rule.
> > 
> > In the code, an RCU read-side critical section begins with rcu_read_lock()
> > and ends with the matching rcu_read_unlock().  RCU read-side critical
> > section may be nested, in which case RCU cares only about the outermost
> > of the nested set.
> > 
> > An RCU grace period includes at least one moment in time during which
> > each and every process/CPU/task/whatever is not within an RCU read-side
> > critical section.
> 
> Strictly speaking, this is not right.  It should say: For each 
> process/CPU/task/whatever, an RCU grace period includes at least one 
> moment in time during which that process is not within an RCU read-side 
> critical section.  There does not have to be any single moment during 
> which no processes are executing a critical section.
> 
> For example, the following is acceptable:
> 
> CPU 0:               start of synchronize_rcu()......end
> CPU 1:  rcu_lock().....................rcu_unlock()
> CPU 2:                    rcu_lock().......................rcu_unlock()

You are quite right, thank you!  Yes, the time outside of an RCU
read-side critical section for a given process/CPU/task/whatever need
not be simultaneous with any other process/CPU/task/whatever.

							Thanx, Paul