linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3] rcu: Remove impossible wakeup rcu GP kthread action from rcu_report_qs

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: <PH0PR11MB5880980194CEA45416325716DAC59@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 04:09:43 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC:     "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] rcu: Remove impossible wakeup rcu GP kthread action
 from rcu_report_qs_rdp()

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 03:30:14PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > When inovke rcu_report_qs_rdp(), if current CPU's rcu_data structure's ->
> > grpmask has not been cleared from the corresponding rcu_node structure's
> > ->qsmask, after that will clear and report quiescent state, but in this
> > time, this also means that current grace period is not end, the current
> > grace period is ongoing, because the rcu_gp_in_progress() currently return
> > true, so for non-offloaded rdp, invoke rcu_accelerate_cbs() is impossible
> > to return true.
> > 
> > This commit therefore remove impossible rcu_gp_kthread_wake() calling.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> 
> Queued (wordsmithed as shown below, as always, please check) for further
> testing and review, thank you both!
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit fbe3e300ec8b3edd2b8f84dab4dc98947cf71eb8
> Author: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> Date:   Wed Jan 18 15:30:14 2023 +0800
> 
>     rcu: Remove never-set needwake assignment from rcu_report_qs_rdp()
>     
>     The rcu_accelerate_cbs() function is invoked by rcu_report_qs_rdp()
>     only if there is a grace period in progress that is still blocked
>     by at least one CPU on this rcu_node structure.  This means that
>     rcu_accelerate_cbs() should never return the value true, and thus that
>     this function should never set the needwake variable and in turn never
>     invoke rcu_gp_kthread_wake().
>     
>     This commit therefore removes the needwake variable and the invocation
>     of rcu_gp_kthread_wake() in favor of a WARN_ON_ONCE() on the call to
>     rcu_accelerate_cbs().  The purpose of this new WARN_ON_ONCE() is to
>     detect situations where the system's opinion differs from ours.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
>     Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index b2c2045294780..7a3085ad0a7df 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1956,7 +1956,6 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  	unsigned long mask;
> -	bool needwake = false;
>  	bool needacc = false;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
>  
> @@ -1988,7 +1987,12 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  		 * NOCB kthreads have their own way to deal with that...
>  		 */
>  		if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp)) {
> -			needwake = rcu_accelerate_cbs(rnp, rdp);
> +			/*
> +			 * The current GP has not yet ended, so it
> +			 * should not be possible for rcu_accelerate_cbs()
> +			 * to return true.  So complain, but don't awaken.
> +			 */
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_accelerate_cbs(rnp, rdp));
>  		} else if (!rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded(&rdp->cblist)) {
>  			/*
>  			 * ...but NOCB kthreads may miss or delay callbacks acceleration
> @@ -2000,8 +2004,6 @@ rcu_report_qs_rdp(struct rcu_data *rdp)
>  		rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
>  		rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rnp, rnp->gp_seq, flags);
>  		/* ^^^ Released rnp->lock */
> -		if (needwake)
> -			rcu_gp_kthread_wake();
>
>AFAICS, there is almost no compiler benefit of doing this, and zero runtime
>benefit of doing this. The WARN_ON_ONCE() also involves a runtime condition
>check of the return value of rcu_accelerate_cbs(), so you still have a
>branch. Yes, maybe slightly smaller code without the wake call, but I'm not
>sure that is worth it.
>
>And, if the opinion of system differs, its a bug anyway, so more added risk.
>
>
>  
>  		if (needacc) {
>  			rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
>
>And when needacc = true, rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked() tries to do a wake up
>anyway, so it is consistent with nocb vs !nocb.

For !nocb, we invoked rcu_accelerate_cbs() before report qs,  so this GP is impossible to end
and we also not set RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT to start new GP in rcu_accelerate_cbs().
but for nocb, when needacc = true, we invoke rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked() after current CPU
has reported qs,  if all CPU have been reported qs,  we will wakeup gp kthread to end this GP in
rcu_report_qs_rnp().   after that, the rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked() is  possible to try to wake up
gp kthread if this GP has ended at this time.   so nocb vs !nocb is likely to be inconsistent.

Thanks
Zqiang


>
>So I am not a fan of this change. ;-)
>
>thanks,
>
> - Joel