netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/14] locking/local_lock: Add local nested BH locking infrastructure.

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: <20240606075244.GB8774@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:52:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/14] locking/local_lock: Add local nested
 BH locking infrastructure.

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Add local_lock_nested_bh() locking. It is based on local_lock_t and the
> naming follows the preempt_disable_nested() example.
> 
> For !PREEMPT_RT + !LOCKDEP it is a per-CPU annotation for locking
> assumptions based on local_bh_disable(). The macro is optimized away
> during compilation.
> For !PREEMPT_RT + LOCKDEP the local_lock_nested_bh() is reduced to
> the usual lock-acquire plus lockdep_assert_in_softirq() - ensuring that
> BH is disabled.
> 
> For PREEMPT_RT local_lock_nested_bh() acquires the specified per-CPU
> lock. It does not disable CPU migration because it relies on
> local_bh_disable() disabling CPU migration.

should we assert this? lockdep_assert(current->migration_disabled) or
somesuch should do, rite?

> With LOCKDEP it performans the usual lockdep checks as with !PREEMPT_RT.
> Due to include hell the softirq check has been moved spinlock.c.
> 
> The intention is to use this locking in places where locking of a per-CPU
> variable relies on BH being disabled. Instead of treating disabled
> bottom halves as a big per-CPU lock, PREEMPT_RT can use this to reduce
> the locking scope to what actually needs protecting.
> A side effect is that it also documents the protection scope of the
> per-CPU variables.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>

Otherwise I suppose sp.. not a fan of the whole nested thing, but I
don't really have an alternative proposal so yeah, whatever :-)