linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove redundant rcu_read_lock/unlock() in spin

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: <20250913080018.7032-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 16:00:15 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	pengdonglin <dolinux.peng@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Remove redundant rcu_read_lock/unlock() in spin_lock critical sections

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 20:33:31 -0400 Waiman Long wrote:
>On 9/12/25 5:35 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 2025-09-12 17:13:09 [-0400], Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 9/12/25 2:50 AM, pengdonglin wrote:
>>>> From: pengdonglin <pengdonglin@...omi.com>
>>>>
>>>> When CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is disabled, spin_lock*() operations implicitly
>>>> disable preemption, which provides RCU read-side protection. When
>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is enabled, spin_lock*() implementations internally
>>>> manage RCU read-side critical sections.
>>> I have some doubt about your claim that disabling preemption provides RCU
>>> read-side protection. It is true for some flavors but probably not all. I do
>>> know that disabling interrupt will provide RCU read-side protection. So for
>>> spin_lock_irq*() calls, that is valid. I am not sure about spin_lock_bh(),
>>> maybe it applies there too. we need some RCU people to confirm.
>> The claim is valid since Paul merged the three flavours we had. Before
>> that preempt_disable() (and disabling irqs) would match
>> rcu_read_lock_sched(). rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_lock_bh() were
>> different in terms of grace period and clean up.
>> So _now_ we could remove it if it makes things easier.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> In this case, I think the patch description should mention the commit 
> that unify the 3 RCU flavors to make sure that this patch won't be 
> accidentally backport'ed to an older kernel without the necessary 
> prerequisite commit(s).

This change also affects the dereference helpers.

#define rcu_dereference_check(p, c) \
	__rcu_dereference_check((p), __UNIQUE_ID(rcu), \
				(c) || rcu_read_lock_held(), __rcu)