Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Avoid problematic critical section nesting on RT

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:47:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

On 2021-08-19 17:39:29 [+0200], To Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

up with following which I can explain:

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
index 40ef5417d9545..5c8b31b7eff03 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c

@@ -1432,28 +1432,34 @@ static void rcutorture_one_extend(int *readstate, int newstate,
 	/* First, put new protection in place to avoid critical-section gap. */
 	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)
 		local_bh_disable();
+	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
+		rcu_read_lock_bh();
 	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ)
 		local_irq_disable();
 	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT)
 		preempt_disable();
-	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
-		rcu_read_lock_bh();
 	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED)
 		rcu_read_lock_sched();
 	if (statesnew & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU)
 		idxnew = cur_ops->readlock() << RCUTORTURE_RDR_SHIFT;

So the ordering in the enable and disable part regarding BH is
important. First BH, then preemption or IRQ.

quoted

-	/* Next, remove old protection, irq first due to bh conflict. */
+	/*
+	 * Next, remove old protection, in decreasing order of strength
+	 * to avoid unlock paths that aren't safe in the stronger
+	 * context. Namely: BH can not be enabled with disabled interrupts.
+	 * Additionally PREEMPT_RT requires that BH is enabled in preemptible
+	 * context.
+	 */
 	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ)
 		local_irq_enable();
-	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)
-		local_bh_enable();
 	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT)
 		preempt_enable();
-	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
-		rcu_read_unlock_bh();
 	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED)
 		rcu_read_unlock_sched();
+	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)
+		local_bh_enable();
+	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH)
+		rcu_read_unlock_bh();
 	if (statesold & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) {
 		bool lockit = !statesnew && !(torture_random(trsp) & 0xffff);

The same in the unlock part so that BH is unlocked in preemptible
context.
Now if you need bh lock/unlock in atomic context (either with disabled
IRQs or preemption) then I would dig out the atomic-bh part again and
make !RT only without the preempt_disable() section around about which
one you did complain.

quoted

@@ -1496,6 +1502,9 @@ rcutorture_extend_mask(int oldmask, struct torture_random_state *trsp)
 	int mask = rcutorture_extend_mask_max();
 	unsigned long randmask1 = torture_random(trsp) >> 8;
 	unsigned long randmask2 = randmask1 >> 3;
+	unsigned long preempts = RCUTORTURE_RDR_PREEMPT | RCUTORTURE_RDR_SCHED;
+	unsigned long preempts_irq = preempts | RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ;
+	unsigned long bhs = RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH | RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH;
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(mask >> RCUTORTURE_RDR_SHIFT);
 	/* Mostly only one bit (need preemption!), sometimes lots of bits. */

@@ -1503,11 +1512,37 @@ rcutorture_extend_mask(int oldmask, struct torture_random_state *trsp)
 		mask = mask & randmask2;
 	else
 		mask = mask & (1 << (randmask2 % RCUTORTURE_RDR_NBITS));
-	/* Can't enable bh w/irq disabled. */
-	if ((mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) &&
-	    ((!(mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH) && (oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH)) ||
-	     (!(mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH) && (oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH))))
-		mask |= RCUTORTURE_RDR_BH | RCUTORTURE_RDR_RBH;
+
+	/*
+	 * Can't enable bh w/irq disabled.
+	 */
+	if (mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ)
+		mask |= oldmask & bhs;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ideally these sequences would be detected in debug builds
+	 * (regardless of RT), but until then don't stop testing
+	 * them on non-RT.
+	 */
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
+		/*
+		 * Can't release the outermost rcu lock in an irq disabled
+		 * section without preemption also being disabled, if irqs
+		 * had ever been enabled during this RCU critical section
+		 * (could leak a special flag and delay reporting the qs).
+		 */
+		if ((oldmask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU) &&
+		    (mask & RCUTORTURE_RDR_IRQ) &&
+		    !(mask & preempts))
+			mask |= RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU;

This piece above, I don't understand. I had it running for a while and
it didn't explode. Let me try TREE01 for 30min without that piece.

This might be historical.  There was a time when interrupts being
disabled across rcu_read_unlock() meant that preemption had to have
been disabled across the entire RCU read-side critical section.

I am not seeing a purpose for it now, but I could easily be missing
something, especially given my tenuous grasp of RT.

Either way, looking forward to the next version!

							Thanx, Paul

quoted

+		/* Can't modify bh in atomic context */
+		if (oldmask & preempts_irq)
+			mask &= ~bhs;
+		if ((oldmask | mask) & preempts_irq)
+			mask |= oldmask & bhs;

And this is needed because we can't lock/unlock bh while atomic.

quoted

+	}
+
 	return mask ?: RCUTORTURE_RDR_RCU;
 }
 

Sebastian

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel