linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] hp: Implement Hazard Pointers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241007104244.GC4879@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:42:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, maged.michael@...il.com,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
	Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
	rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] hp: Implement Hazard Pointers

On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 02:56:26PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2024-10-05 18:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 06:04:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 02:27:33PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > > > +void hp_scan(struct hp_slot __percpu *percpu_slots, void *addr,
> > > > +	     void (*retire_cb)(int cpu, struct hp_slot *slot, void *addr))
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int cpu;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Store A precedes hp_scan(): it unpublishes addr (sets it to
> > > > +	 * NULL or to a different value), and thus hides it from hazard
> > > > +	 * pointer readers.
> > > > +	 */
> > 
> > This should probably assert we're in a preemptible context. Otherwise
> > people will start using this in non-preemptible context and then we get
> > to unfuck things later.
> 
> Something like this ?
> 
> +       /* Should only be called from preemptible context. */
> +       WARN_ON_ONCE(in_atomic());

	lockdep_assert_preemption_enabled();

that also checks local IRQ state IIRC.