linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] rcu: Reduce synchronize

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: <ZeW2w08WZo4yapQp@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:55:47 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency

Le Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:04:21PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:07:32AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 07:31:13PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct llist_node *done, *rcu, *next, *head;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * This work execution can potentially execute
> > > +	 * while a new done tail is being updated by
> > > +	 * grace period kthread in rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup().
> > > +	 * So, read and updates of done tail need to
> > > +	 * follow acq-rel semantics.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * Given that wq semantics guarantees that a single work
> > > +	 * cannot execute concurrently by multiple kworkers,
> > > +	 * the done tail list manipulations are protected here.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> > > +	if (!done)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_sr_is_wait_head(done));
> > > +	head = done->next;
> > > +	done->next = NULL;
> > 
> > Can the following race happen?
> > 
> > CPU 0                                                   CPU 1
> > -----                                                   -----
> > 
> > // wait_tail == HEAD1
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> >     // has passed SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP
> >     wait_tail->next = next;
> >     // done_tail = HEAD1
> >     smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> >     queue_work() {
> >         test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
> >         __queue_work()
> >     }
> > }
> > 
> >                                                       set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
> >                                                       rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
> > // new GP, wait_tail == HEAD2
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> >     // executes all completion, but stop at HEAD1
> >     wait_tail->next = HEAD1;
> >     // done_tail = HEAD2
> >     smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
> >     queue_work() {
> >         test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
> >         __queue_work()
> >     }
> > }
> >                                                           // done = HEAD2
> >                                                           done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> >                                                           // head = HEAD1
> >                                                           head = done->next;
> >                                                           done->next = NULL;
> >                                                           llist_for_each_safe() {
> >                                                               // completes all callbacks, release HEAD1
> >                                                           }
> >                                                       }
> >                                                       // Process second queue
> >                                                       set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
> >                                                       rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
> >                                                           // done = HEAD2
> >                                                           done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> > 
> > // new GP, wait_tail == HEAD3
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
> >     // Finds HEAD2 with ->next == NULL at the end
> >     rcu_sr_put_wait_head(HEAD2)
> >     ...
> > 
> > // A few more GPs later
> > rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() {
> >      HEAD2 = rcu_sr_get_wait_head();
> >      llist_add(HEAD2, &rcu_state.srs_next);
> >                                                           // head == rcu_state.srs_next
> >                                                           head = done->next;
> >                                                           done->next = NULL;
> >                                                           llist_for_each_safe() {
> >                                                               // EXECUTE CALLBACKS TOO EARLY!!!
> >                                                           }
> >                                                       }
> Looks like that. To address this, we should not release the head in the GP
> > kthread.

But then you have to unconditionally schedule the work, right? Otherwise the
HEADs are not released. And that means dropping this patch (right now I don't
have a better idea).