linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tasks: Further comment ordering around current task snapshot on TASK-TRACE

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: <Zku1kDj_LjK3WxaA@pavilion.home>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 22:41:52 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu/tasks: Further comment ordering around current
 task snapshot on TASK-TRACE

Le Mon, May 20, 2024 at 11:48:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 05:23:03PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Comment the current understanding of barriers and locking role around
> > task snapshot.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > index 6a9ee35a282e..05413b37dd6e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > @@ -1738,9 +1738,21 @@ static void rcu_tasks_trace_pregp_step(struct list_head *hop)
> >  	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >  		rcu_read_lock();
> >  		/*
> > -		 * RQ must be locked because no ordering exists/can be relied upon
> > -		 * between rq->curr write and subsequent read sides. This ensures that
> > -		 * further context switching tasks will see update side pre-GP accesses.
> > +		 * RQ lock + smp_mb__after_spinlock() before reading rq->curr serve
> > +		 * two purposes:
> > +		 *
> > +		 * 1) Ordering against previous tasks accesses (though already enforced
> > +		 *    by upcoming IPIs and post-gp synchronize_rcu()).
> > +		 *
> > +		 * 2) Make sure not to miss latest context switch, because no ordering
> > +		 *    exists/can be relied upon between rq->curr write and subsequent read
> > +		 *    sides.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * 3) Make sure subsequent context switching tasks will see update side
> > +		 *    pre-GP accesses.
> > +		 *
> > +		 * smp_mb() after reading rq->curr doesn't play a significant role and might
> > +		 * be considered for removal in the future.
> >  		 */
> >  		t = cpu_curr_snapshot(cpu);
> >  		if (rcu_tasks_trace_pertask_prep(t, true))
> 
> How about this for that comment?
> 
> 		// Note that cpu_curr_snapshot() picks up the target
> 		// CPU's current task while its runqueue is locked with an
> 		// smp_mb__after_spinlock().  This ensures that subsequent
> 		// tasks running on that CPU will see the updater's pre-GP
> 		// accesses.

Right but to achieve that, the smp_mb() was already enough, courtesy of
the official full barrier on schedule that (this one at least) we could rely on:

Updater             Reader
------             -------
X = 1              rq->curr = A
                   // another context switch later
smp_mb()           smp_mb__after_spin_lock() // right after rq_lock on __schedule()
READ rq->curr      rq->curr = B
                   READ X

If the updater misses A, B will see the update on X.

So I think we still need to justify the rq locking on the comments.

>                          The trailng smp_mb() in cpu_curr_snapshot()
> 		// does not currently play a role other than simplify
> 		// that function's ordering semantics.  If these simplified
> 		// ordering semantics continue to be redundant, that smp_mb()
> 		// might be removed.

That looks good.

> 
> I left out the "ordering agains previous tasks accesses" because,
> as you say, this ordering is provided elsewhere.

Right!

Thanks.