linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading

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: <dd853e13-ffcd-4579-adad-80b014e906ef@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Sun, 26 Mar 2023 14:45:18 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent
 (de-)offloading

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 10:01:34PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 03:51:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 11:09:08PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Le Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 04:18:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > > > > @@ -1336,13 +1336,25 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > > > >  	unsigned long count = 0;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Protect against concurrent (de-)offloading. Otherwise nocb locking
> > > > > +	 * may be ignored or imbalanced.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
> > > > 
> > > > I was worried about this possibly leading to out-of-memory deadlock,
> > > > but if I recall correctly, the (de-)offloading process never allocates
> > > > memory, so this should be OK?
> > > 
> > > Good point. It _should_ be fine but like you, Joel and Hillf pointed out
> > > it's asking for trouble.
> > > 
> > > We could try Joel's idea to use mutex_trylock() as a best effort, which
> > > should be fine as it's mostly uncontended.
> > > 
> > > The alternative is to force nocb locking and check the offloading state
> > > right after. So instead of:
> > > 
> > > 	rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
> > > 	//flush stuff
> > > 	rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
> > > 
> > > Have:
> > > 
> > > 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(rdp->nocb_lock, flags);
> > > 	if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> > > 		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(rdp->nocb_lock, flags);
> > > 		continue;
> > > 	}
> > > 	//flush stuff
> > > 	rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
> > > 
> > > But it's not pretty and also disqualifies the last two patches as
> > > rcu_nocb_mask can't be iterated safely anymore.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > The mutex_trylock() approach does have the advantage of simplicity,
> > and as you say should do well given low contention.
> > 
> > Which reminds me, what sort of test strategy did you have in mind?
> > Memory exhaustion can have surprising effects.
> 
> The best I can do is to trigger the count and scan callbacks through
> the shrinker debugfs and see if it crashes or not :-)

Sounds like a good start.  Maybe also a good finish?  ;-)

> > > > >  	/* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
> > > > >  	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > >  		struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > > > > -		int _count = READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len);
> > > > > +		int _count;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> > > > > +			continue;
> > > > 
> > > > If the CPU is offloaded, isn't ->lazy_len guaranteed to be zero?
> > > > 
> > > > Or can it contain garbage after a de-offloading operation?
> > > 
> > > If it's deoffloaded, ->lazy_len is indeed (supposed to be) guaranteed to be zero.
> > > Bypass is flushed and disabled atomically early on de-offloading and the
> > > flush resets ->lazy_len.
> > 
> > Whew!  At the moment, I don't feel strongly about whether or not
> > the following code should (1) read the value, (2) warn on non-zero,
> > (3) assume zero without reading, or (4) some other option that is not
> > occurring to me.  Your choice!
> 
> (2) looks like a good idea!

Sounds good to me!

							Thanx, Paul