linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rcutorture: Perform more frequent testing of ->gpwrap

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: <587e21be-9595-4625-b929-0e8b4a215a43@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:19:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rcutorture: Perform more frequent testing of
 ->gpwrap

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:05:45AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On 4/10/2025 2:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> +static int rcu_gpwrap_lag_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> +	if (gpwrap_lag_cycle_mins <= 0 || gpwrap_lag_active_mins <= 0) {
> >> +		pr_alert("rcu-torture: lag timing parameters must be positive\n");
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> > When rcutorture is initiated by modprobe, this makes perfect sense.
> > 
> > But if rcutorture is built in, we have other choices:  (1) Disable gpwrap
> > testing and do other testing but splat so that the bogus scripting can
> > be fixed, (2) Force default values and splat as before, (3) Splat and
> > halt the system.
> > 
> > The usual approach has been #1, but what makes sense in this case?
> 
> If the user deliberately tries to prevent the test, I am Ok with #3 which I
> believe is the current behavior. But otherwise #1 is also Ok with me but I don't
> feel strongly about doing that.
> 
> If we want to do #3, it will just involve changing the "return -EINVAL" to
> "return 0" but also may need to be doing so only if RCU torture is a built-in.
> 
> IMO the current behavior is reasonable than adding more complexity for an
> unusual case for a built-in?

The danger is that someone adjusts a scenario, accidentally disables
*all* ->gpwrap testing during built-in tests (kvm.sh, kvm-remote,sh,
and torture.sh), and nobody notices.  This has tripped me up in the
past, hence the existing splats in rcutorture, but only for runs with
built-in rcutorture.

> On the other hand if the issue is with providing the user with a way to disable
> gpwrap testing, that should IMO be another parameter than setting the _mins
> parameters to be 0. But I think we may not want this testing disabled since it
> is already "self-disabled" for the first 25 miutes.

We do need a way of disabling the testing on long runs for fault-isolation
purposes.

For example, rcutorture.n_up_down=0 disables SRCU up/down testing.
Speaking of which, I am adding a section on that topic to this document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RoYRrTsabdeTXcldzpoMnpmmCjGbJNWtDXN6ZNr_4H8/edit?usp=sharing

							Thanx, Paul