lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [3/11] SYSCTL: Add proc_rcu_string to manage sysctls using rcu strings
From
Date
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:20:24AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Add a helper to use the new rcu strings for managing access
>> to text sysctls. Conversions will be in follow-on patches.
>>
>> An alternative would be to use seqlocks here, but RCU seemed
>> cleaner.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
>
> Using the below as an example of my concern about access_rcu_string(), FYI.
>
>> ---
>> include/linux/sysctl.h | 2 +
>> kernel/sysctl.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> kernel/sysctl_check.c | 1
>> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak.orig/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> +++ linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> @@ -969,6 +969,8 @@ typedef int proc_handler (struct ctl_tab
>>
>> extern int proc_dostring(struct ctl_table *, int,
>> void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> +extern int proc_rcu_string(struct ctl_table *, int,
>> + void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> extern int proc_dointvec(struct ctl_table *, int,
>> void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>> extern int proc_dointvec_minmax(struct ctl_table *, int,
>> Index: linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak/kernel/sysctl.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak.orig/kernel/sysctl.c
>> +++ linux-2.6.33-rc1-ak/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>> #include <linux/ftrace.h>
>> #include <linux/slow-work.h>
>> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>> +#include <linux/rcustring.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/uaccess.h>
>> #include <asm/processor.h>
>> @@ -2016,6 +2017,60 @@ static int _proc_do_string(void* data, i
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * proc_rcu_string - sysctl string with rcu protection
>> + * @table: the sysctl table
>> + * @write: %TRUE if this is a write to the sysctl file
>> + * @buffer: the user buffer
>> + * @lenp: the size of the user buffer
>> + * @ppos: file position
>> + *
>> + * Handle a string sysctl similar to proc_dostring.
>> + * The main difference is that the data pointer in the table
>> + * points to a pointer to a string. The string should be initially
>> + * pointing to a statically allocated (as a C object, not on the heap)
>> + * default. When it is replaced old uses will be protected by
>> + * RCU. The reader should use rcu_read_lock()/unlock() or
>> + * access_rcu_string().
>> + */
>> +int proc_rcu_string(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
>> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (write) {
>> + /* protect writers against each other */
>> + static DEFINE_MUTEX(rcu_string_mutex);
>> + char *old;
>> + char *new;
>> +
>> + new = alloc_rcu_string(table->maxlen, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!new)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + mutex_lock(&rcu_string_mutex);
>> + old = *(char **)(table->data);
>> + strcpy(new, old);
>> + ret = _proc_do_string(new, table->maxlen, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(*(char **)(table->data), new);
>> + /*
>> + * For the first initialization allow constant strings.
>> + */
>> + if (!kernel_address((unsigned long)old))
>> + free_rcu_string(old);
>> + mutex_unlock(&rcu_string_mutex);
>> + } else {
>> + char *str;
>> +
>> + str = access_rcu_string(*(char **)(table->data), table->maxlen,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>
> So the above statement picks up table->data, then some other CPU comes
> in and executes the "write" side of this "if" statement, we get
> preempted before access_rcu_string() enters its RCU read-side critical
> section, the grace period elapse, we resume, and ... ouch!
>
> One trick would be to make access_rcu_string() be a macro that does
> first access to its first argument in an RCU read-side critical section.
> Alternatively, pass in the address of the pointer, rather than the
> pointer itself.
>
> Or explain to me how I am confused.

That sounds correct to me. There is also the missing rcu_dereference.

Which is less important but it would make clear that access_rcu_string
does the dereference outside of the rcu critical section.

Eric



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-22 04:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans