linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK

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: <a6d65874-1280-bf16-06ce-2062d913dbca@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:10:31 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, xiang@...nel.org,
        Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@...iatek.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
 !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC



On 2023/7/13 10:02, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/7/13 08:32, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:20:56PM -0700, Sandeep Dhavale wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> As such this patch looks correct to me, one thing I noticed is that
>>>> you can check rcu_is_watching() like the lockdep-enabled code does.
>>>> That will tell you also if a reader-section is possible because in
>>>> extended-quiescent-states, RCU readers should be non-existent or
>>>> that's a bug.
>>>>
>>> Please correct me if I am wrong, reading from the comment in
>>> kernel/rcu/update.c rcu_read_lock_held_common()
>>> ..
>>>    * The reason for this is that RCU ignores CPUs that are
>>>   * in such a section, considering these as in extended quiescent state,
>>>   * so such a CPU is effectively never in an RCU read-side critical section
>>>   * regardless of what RCU primitives it invokes.
>>>
>>> It seems rcu will treat this as lock not held rather than a fact that
>>> lock is not held. Is my understanding correct?
>>
>> If RCU treats it as a lock not held, that is a fact for RCU ;-). Maybe you
>> mean it is not a fact for erofs?
> 
> I'm not sure if I get what you mean, EROFS doesn't take any RCU read lock
> here:
> 
> z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio() is actually a "bio->bi_end_io", previously
> which can be called under two scenarios:
> 
>   1) under softirq context, which is actually part of device I/O compleltion;
> 
>   2) under threaded context, like what dm-verity or likewise calls.
> 
> But EROFS needs to decompress in a threaded context anyway, so we trigger
> a workqueue to resolve the case 1).
> 
> 
> Recently, someone reported there could be some case 3) [I think it was
> introduced recently but I have no time to dig into it]:
> 
>   case 3: under RCU read lock context, which is shown by this:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/4a8254eb-ac39-1e19-3d82-417d3a7b9f94@linux.alibaba.com/T/#u

Sorry about the incorrect link (I really don't know who initally reported
this and on which device):

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/161f1615-3d85-cf47-d2d5-695adf1ca7d4@linux.alibaba.com/T/#t

> 
>   and such RCU read lock is taken in __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops().
> 
> But as the commit shown, we only need to trigger a workqueue for case 1)
> and 3) due to performance reasons.
> 
> Hopefully I show it more clear.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang