linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] rcu/tasks: Handle new PF

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: <ZTjudk5mV8PVYsS-@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:31:18 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rcu/tasks: Handle new PF_IDLE semantics

Le Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:40:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:46:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > +/* Check for quiescent states since the pregp's synchronize_rcu() */
> > +static bool rcu_tasks_is_holdout(struct task_struct *t)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	/* Has the task been seen voluntarily sleeping? */
> > +	if (!READ_ONCE(t->on_rq))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	cpu = task_cpu(t);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Idle tasks within the idle loop or offline CPUs are RCU-tasks
> > +	 * quiescent states. But CPU boot code performed by the idle task
> > +	 * isn't a quiescent state.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (t == idle_task(cpu)) {
> > +		if (is_idle_task(t))
> > +			return false;
> > +
> > +		if (!rcu_cpu_online(cpu))
> > +			return false;
> > +	}
> 
> Hmm, why is this guarded by t == idle_task() ?
> 
> Notably, there is the idle-injection thing that uses FIFO tasks to run
> 'idle', see play_idle_precise(). This will (temporarily) get PF_IDLE on
> tasks that are not idle_task().

Ah good point. So indeed the is_idle_task() test doesn't musn't be
guarded by t == idle_task(cpu). But rcu_cpu_online() has to, otherwise
if it's not an idle task, there is a risk that the task gets migrated out
by the time we observe the old CPU offline.

Thanks.

> 
> > +
> > +	return true;
> > +}
> > +
> >  /* Per-task initial processing. */
> >  static void rcu_tasks_pertask(struct task_struct *t, struct list_head *hop)
> >  {
> > -	if (t != current && READ_ONCE(t->on_rq) && !is_idle_task(t)) {
> > +	if (t != current && rcu_tasks_is_holdout(t)) {
> 
>