Re: [PATCH] rcu: Is it safe to enter an RCU read-side criticalsection?

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:13:31 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> > In any case the preempt_disable/enable pair there is just plain wrong as
> > Eric pointed out.
> 
> Check this:
> 
> 34240697d619c439c55f21989680024dcb604aab "rcu: Disable preemption in rcu_is_cpu_idle()"


Ug, and that patch does nothing to fix the bug that it reported!

    1.  Task A on CPU 1 enters rcu_is_cpu_idle() and picks up the
    pointer to CPU 1's per-CPU variables.
    
    2.  Task B preempts Task A and starts running on CPU 1.

Let's say that B preempts Task A here:

       preempt_disable();
       ret = (atomic_read(&__get_cpu_var(rcu_dynticks).dynticks) &  0x1) == 0;
       preempt_enable();
 <preempt>
       return ret;

    
    3.  Task A migrates to CPU 2.
    
    4.  Task B blocks, leaving CPU 1 idle.
    
    5.  Task A continues execution on CPU 2, accessing CPU 1's
    dyntick-idle information using the pointer fetched in step 1 above,
    and finds that CPU 1 is idle.

Yeah, and Task A is using the "ret" from CPU 1!
    
    6.  Task A therefore incorrectly concludes that it is executing in
        an extended quiescent state, possibly issuing a spurious splat.
    
    Therefore, this commit disables preemption within the
    rcu_is_cpu_idle() function.

Where this commit is totally bogus. Sorry, but it is.

This just proves that the caller of rcu_is_cpu_idle() must disable
preemption itself for the entire time that it needs to use the result
of rcu_is_cpu_idle().

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/