Oleg Nesterov a écrit :
On 12/03, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Oleg Nesterov a ?crit :
On top of rcu-add-a-prefetch-in-rcu_do_batch.patch
rcu_do_batch:
struct rcu_head *next, *list;
while (list) {
next = list->next; <------ [1]
list->func(list);
list = next;
}
We can't trust *list after list->func() call, that is why we load
list->next
beforehand. However I suspect in theory this is not enough, suppose that
- [1] is stalled
- list->func() marks *list as unused in some way
- another CPU re-uses this rcu_head and dirties it
- [1] completes and gets a wrong result
This means we need a barrier in between. mb() looks more suitable, but I
think
rmb() should suffice.
Well, hopefully the "list->func()" MUST do the right thing [*], so your
patch is not necessary.
Yes, I don't claim it is necessary, note the "pure theoretical".
For example, most structures are freed with kfree()/kmem_cache_free() and
these functions MUST imply an smp_mb() [if/when exchanging data with other
cpus], or else many uses in the kernel should be corrected as well.
Yes, mb() is enough (wmb() isn't) and kfree()/kmem_cache_free() are ok.
And I don't know any example of "unsafe" code in that sense.
However I believe it is easy to make the code which is correct from the
RCU's API pov, but unsafe.
Yes, but how is it related to RCU ?
I mean, rcu_do_batch() is just a loop like others in kernel.
The loop itself is not buggy, but can call a buggy function, you are right.
A smp_rmb() wont avoid all possible bugs...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]