linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rcu: Use _full() API to debug 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <400c9d5c-8725-4723-b129-c5f2976817a9@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 11:06:01 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <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 v2 3/3] rcu: Use _full() API to debug synchronize_rcu()

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> Switch for using of get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and
> poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() pair for debug a normal
> synchronize_rcu() call.
> 
> Just using "not" full APIs to identify if a grace period
> is passed or not might lead to a false kernel splat.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z5ikQeVmVdsWQrdD@pc636/T/
> Fixes: 988f569ae041 ("rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency")
> Reported-by: cheung wall <zzqq0103.hey@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@...il.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h | 4 ++++
>  kernel/rcu/tree.c             | 8 +++-----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> index f9bed3d3f78d..a16fc2a9a7d7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_wait.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,10 @@
>  struct rcu_synchronize {
>  	struct rcu_head head;
>  	struct completion completion;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> +	/* This is for testing. */
> +	struct rcu_gp_oldstate oldstate;
> +#endif

This causes the build to fail on TREE01.  One way to make the build
succeed is to remove the #ifdefs above.  Another way would be to add
#ifdefs to the WARN_ONCE() below.  I suspect that removing the #ifdefs
is best, at least until such time as people start passing many tens
of SRCU instances to synchronize_rcu_mult() or some such (which seems
quite unlikely).

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

>  };
>  void wakeme_after_rcu(struct rcu_head *head);
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 8625f616c65a..48384fa2eaeb 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1632,12 +1632,10 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
>  {
>  	struct rcu_synchronize *rs = container_of(
>  		(struct rcu_head *) node, struct rcu_synchronize, head);
> -	unsigned long oldstate = (unsigned long) rs->head.func;
>  
>  	WARN_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) &&
> -		!poll_state_synchronize_rcu(oldstate),
> -		"A full grace period is not passed yet: %lu",
> -		rcu_seq_diff(get_state_synchronize_rcu(), oldstate));
> +		!poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs->oldstate),
> +		"A full grace period is not passed yet!\n");
>  
>  	/* Finally. */
>  	complete(&rs->completion);
> @@ -3247,7 +3245,7 @@ static void synchronize_rcu_normal(void)
>  	 * snapshot before adding a request.
>  	 */
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU))
> -		rs.head.func = (void *) get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> +		get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rs.oldstate);
>  
>  	rcu_sr_normal_add_req(&rs);
>  
> -- 
> 2.39.5
>