linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic

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]

Date:   Mon, 8 May 2023 09:30:28 -0300
From:   Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM" 
        <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe() function

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 5:16 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Wander,
>
> I certainly missed something ;) plus I am already sleeping. but let me try to
> reply anyway.
>
> On 05/04, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 4:23 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05/04, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 12:23 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but as Sebastian explained CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING won't like it.
> > > > >
> > > > >         https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+zFNrCjBn53%2F+Q2@linutronix.de/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that was my confusion in that thread. My understanding is that
> > > > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING will check lock ordering but not
> > > > context.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't understand... perhaps I missed something. But iiuc
> > > the problem is simple.
> > >
> > > So, this code
> > >
> > >         raw_spin_lock(one);
> > >         spin_lock(two);
> > >
> > > is obviously wrong if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.
> > >
> > > Without PREEMPT_RT this code is fine because raw_spinlock_t and spinlock_t
> > > are the same thing. Except they have different lockdep annotations if
> > > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is true, LD_WAIT_SPIN and LD_WAIT_CONFIG.
> > >
> > > So if CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is set, lockdep will complain even
> > > on the !PREEMPT_RT kernel, iow it checks the nesting as if the code runs
> > > on with PREEMPT_RT.
> > >
> > > Cough... not sure my explanation can help ;) It looks very confusing when
> > > I read it.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation. That's my understanding too. The part I
> > don't get is why this would fail with a call_rcu() inside
> > put_task_struct().
>
> the problem is that call_rcu() won't be called if !IS_ENABLED(PREEMPT_RT),
> ___put_task_struct() will be called.
>
> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING can't know this can't happen if PREEMPT_RT
> is set.
>
> IOW. To simplify, suppose we have
>
>         // can be called in atomic context, e.g. under
>         // raw_spin_lock() so it is wrong with PREEMPT_RT
>         void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
>         {
>                 spin_lock(some_lock);
>         }
>
> lets "fix" the code above, lets change __put_task_struct,
>
>         void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
>         {
>                 if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT))
>                         return;
>
>                 spin_lock(some_lock);
>         }
>
> Now, if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is true then __put_task_struct() is fine
> wrt lock nesting.
>
> But, if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is not set, then __put_task_struct() still
> does the same:
>
>         void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
>         {
>                 spin_lock(some_lock);
>         }
>
> and CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING will complain. Because, once again,
> it checks the nesting as if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is true, and in this case
> __put_task_struct() if it is called under raw_spin_lock().
>

IIUC, this is a problem with the current implementation, isn't it?
Because the holder of raw_spin_lock is the put_task_struct() caller.

> Oleg.
>