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: <c57daf05-1018-40b5-9684-22dfd94cc8d9@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:36:07 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Cheung Wall <zzqq0103.hey@...il.com>,
	Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] torture: Remove CONFIG_NR_CPUS configuration

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 06:21:30PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 07:45:23AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:41:38PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:29:45PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:58:26PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > > This configuration specifies the maximum number of CPUs which
> > > > > is set to 8. The problem is that it can not be overwritten for
> > > > > something higher.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Remove that configuration for TREE05, so it is possible to run
> > > > > the torture test on as many CPUs as many system has.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > You should be able to override this on the kvm.sh command line by
> > > > specifying "--kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=128" or whatever number you wish.
> > > > For example, see the torture.sh querying the system's number of CPUs
> > > > and then specifying it to a number of tests.
> > > > 
> > > > Or am I missing something here?
> > > > 
> > > It took me a while to understand what happens. Apparently there is this
> > > 8 CPUs limitation. Yes, i can do it manually by passing --kconfig but
> > > you need to know about that. I have not expected that.
> > > 
> > > Therefore i removed it from the configuration because i have not found
> > > a good explanation why we need. It is confusing instead :)
> > 
> > Right now, if I do a run with --configs "TREE10 14*CFLIST", this will
> > make use of 20 systems with 80 CPUs each.  If you remove that line from
> > TREE05, won't each instance of TREE05 consume a full system, for a total
> > of 33 systems?  Yes, I could use "--kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8" on the
> > command line, but that would affect all the scenarios, not just TREE05.
> > Including (say) TINY01, where I believe that it would cause kvm.sh
> > to complain about a Kconfig conflict.
> > 
> > Hence me not being in favor of this change.  ;-)
> > 
> > Is there another way to make things work for both situations?
> > 
> OK, i see. Well. I will just go with --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=foo if i
> need more CPUs for TREE05.
> 
> I will not resist, we just drop this patch :)

Thank you!

The bug you are chasing happens when a given synchonize_rcu() interacts
with RCU readers, correct?

In rcutorture, only the rcu_torture_writer() call to synchronize_rcu()
interacts with rcu_torture_reader().  So my guess is that running
many small TREE05 guest OSes would reproduce this bug more quickly.
So instead of this:

	--kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=128

Do this:

	--configs "16*TREE05"

Or maybe even this:

	--configs "16*TREE05" --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ