linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints

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: <20231121143647.GI8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:36:47 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 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@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:06:18AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Task trace RCU fits a niche that has the following set of requirements/tradeoffs:
> 
> - Allow page faults within RCU read-side (like SRCU),
> - Has a low-overhead read lock-unlock (without the memory barrier overhead of SRCU),
> - The tradeoff: Has a rather slow synchronize_rcu(), but tracers should not care about
>   that. Hence, this is not meant to be a generic replacement for SRCU.
> 
> Based on my reading of https://lwn.net/Articles/253651/ , preemptible RCU is not a good
> fit for the following reasons:
> 
> - It disallows blocking within a RCU read-side on non-CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels,

Your counter points are confused, we simply don't build preemptible RCU
unless PREEMPT=y, but that could surely be fixed and exposed as a
separate flavour.

> - AFAIU the mmap_sem used within the page fault handler does not have priority inheritance.

What's that got to do with anything?

Still utterly confused about what task-tracing rcu is and how it is
different from preemptible rcu.