From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:56:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140611195613.GM4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140611175934.GA28912@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:59:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:17:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 06/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> > > > > rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
> > > > > rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> > > > > + wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > I must have missed something, I dont understand why we need ->boost_completion.
> > > >
> > > > What if you simply move that rt_mutex into rcu_node ?
> > > >
> > > > Or. Given that rcu_boost_kthread() never exits, it can declare this mutex
> > > > on stack and pass the pointer to rcu_boost() ?
> > >
> > > Ah, please ignore, I forgot about init_proxy_locked(). Although perhaps this
> > > can be solved easily.
> >
> > You beat me to it. ;-)
> >
> > I was thinking of ->boost_completion as the way to solve it easily, but
> > what did you have in mind?
>
> I meant, rcu_boost() could probably just do "mtx->owner = t", we know that
> it was unlocked by us and nobody else can use it until we set
> t->rcu_boost_mutex.
My concern with this is that rcu_read_unlock_special() could hypothetically
get preempted (either by kernel or hypervisor), so that it might be a long
time until it makes its reference. But maybe that reference would be
harmless in this case.
> And if we move it into rcu_node, then we can probably kill ->rcu_boost_mutex,
> rcu_read_unlock_special() could check rnp->boost_mutex->owner == current.
If this was anywhere near a hot code path, I would be sorely tempted.
> But you know, I also think that the dentist removed the rest of my brains
> along my tooth, so I am not sure if I actually have something in mind.
Ouch!!! When that happens to me, most of my brains return some time
after the anesthetic wears off, but I know the feeling!
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-11 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-03 17:02 [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 17:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 18:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-03 20:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 20:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-06 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-08 13:07 ` safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc) Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-09 16:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-09 18:15 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-09 18:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-09 18:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-09 19:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-10 8:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 16:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10 18:08 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 18:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-10 20:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 20:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-11 15:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 17:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-11 17:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 19:56 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-06-12 17:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-12 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-12 21:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-12 22:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-12 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 15:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-15 5:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-17 18:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-18 16:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-18 16:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-21 19:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-18 17:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-13 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-13 16:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-13 16:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-13 14:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-11 17:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 17:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10 17:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-10 12:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 15:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-06-10 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-09 19:04 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-10 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 12:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 13:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-10 14:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-10 15:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-06-03 20:05 ` [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 20:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-03 20:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 20:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 21:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-03 18:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-03 19:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-06-04 1:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-04 16:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140611195613.GM4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox