linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] smp: Document preemption and stop

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: <20250708072112.GA1613376@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:21:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual
 exclusion

On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 10:19:52AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:

> From: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] smp: Document preemption and stop_machine() mutual exclusion
> 
> Recently while revising RCU's cpu online checks, there was some discussion
> around how IPIs synchronize with hotplug.
> 
> Add comments explaining how preemption disable creates mutual exclusion with
> CPU hotplug's stop_machine mechanism. The key insight is that stop_machine()
> atomically updates CPU masks and flushes IPIs with interrupts disabled, and
> cannot proceed while any CPU (including the IPI sender) has preemption
> disabled.
> 
> Cc: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> Co-developed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
> ---
> I am leaving in Paul's Ack but Paul please let me know if there is a concern!
> 
>  kernel/smp.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 974f3a3962e8..957959031063 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ int smpcfd_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>  	 * explicitly (without waiting for the IPIs to arrive), to
>  	 * ensure that the outgoing CPU doesn't go offline with work
>  	 * still pending.
> +	 *
> +	 * This runs with interrupts disabled inside the stopper task invoked
> +	 * by stop_machine(), ensuring CPU offlining and IPI flushing are atomic.

So below you use 'mutual exclusion', which I prefer over 'atomic' as
used here.

>  	 */
>  	__flush_smp_call_function_queue(false);
>  	irq_work_run();
> @@ -418,6 +421,10 @@ void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
>   */
>  static int generic_exec_single(int cpu, call_single_data_t *csd)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * Preemption already disabled here so stopper cannot run on this CPU,
> +	 * ensuring mutual exclusion with CPU offlining and last IPI flush.
> +	 */
>  	if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
>  		smp_call_func_t func = csd->func;
>  		void *info = csd->info;
> @@ -638,8 +645,10 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, smp_call_func_t func, void *info,
>  	int err;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor,
> -	 * as well as CPU removal
> +	 * Prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor, as well as
> +	 * CPU removal.

>          Also preempt_disable() prevents stopper from running on
> +	 * this CPU, thus providing atomicity between the cpu_online() check
> +	 * and IPI sending ensuring IPI is not missed by CPU going offline.

That first sentence already covers this, no? 'prevents preemption' ->
stopper task cannot run, 'CPU removal' -> no CPU_DYING (because no
stopper). Also that 'atomicy' vs 'mutual exclusion' thing.


>  	 */
>  	this_cpu = get_cpu();
>  
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>