On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:22:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 03:21:23PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:58:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:44:52PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 07:27:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > > The INT_MAX naming could be very confusing for nesting levels, could we
> > > > not
> > > > instead just define something like:
> > > > #define RCU_NESTING_MIN (INT_MIN - 1)
> > > > #define RCU_NESTING_MAX (INT_MAX)
> > > >
> > > > and just use that? also one more comment below:
> > >
> > > Hmmm... There is currently no use for RCU_NESTING_MAX, but if the check
> > > at the end of __rcu_read_unlock() were to be extended to check for
> > > too-deep positive nesting, it would need to check for something like
> > > INT_MAX/2. You could of course argue that the current check against
> > > INT_MIN/2 should instead be against -INT_MAX/2, but there really isn't
> > > much difference between the two.
> > >
> > > Another approach would be to convert to unsigned in order to avoid the
> > > overflow problem completely.
> > >
> > > For the moment, anyway, I am inclined to leave it as is.
> >
> > Both the unsigned and INT_MIN/2 options sound good to me, but if you want
> > leave it as is, that would be fine as well. thanks,
>
> One approach would be something like this:
>
> #define RCU_READ_LOCK_BIAS (INT_MAX)
> #define RCU_READ_LOCK_NMAX (-INT_MAX)
> #define RCU_READ_LOCK_PMAX INT_MAX
>
> Then _rcu_read_unlock() would set ->rcu_read_lock_nesting to
> -RCU_READ_LOCK_BIAS, and compare against RCU_READ_LOCK_NMAX.
> The comparison against RCU_READ_LOCK_PMAX would preferably take
> place just after the increment in __rcu_read_lock(), again only under
> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
>
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() would then subtract then add RCU_READ_LOCK_BIAS.
>
> Thoughts?
Hearing no objections, here is the updated patch.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 970cab5d3d206029ed27274a98ea1c3d7e780e53
Author: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Oct 29 07:36:50 2018 -0700
rcu: Avoid signed integer overflow in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs()
Subtracting INT_MIN can be interpreted as unconditional signed integer
overflow, which according to the C standard is undefined behavior.
Therefore, kernel build arguments notwithstanding, it would be good to
future-proof the code. This commit therefore substitutes INT_MAX for
INT_MIN in order to avoid undefined behavior.
While in the neighborhood, this commit also creates some meaningful names
for INT_MAX and friends in order to improve readability, as suggested
by Joel Fernandes.
Reported-by: Ran Rozenstein <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
squash! rcu: Avoid signed integer overflow in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs()
While in the neighborhood, use macros to give meaningful names.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index bd8186d0f4a7..e60f820ffb83 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -397,6 +397,11 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node
*rnp)
return rnp->gp_tasks != NULL;
}
+/* Bias and limit values for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
+#define RCU_NEST_BIAS INT_MAX
+#define RCU_NEST_NMAX (-INT_MAX / 2)
+#define RCU_NEST_PMAX (INT_MAX / 2)
+
/*
* Preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_lock().
* Just increment ->rcu_read_lock_nesting, shared state will be updated
@@ -405,6 +410,8 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node
*rnp)
void __rcu_read_lock(void)
{
current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++;
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING))
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(current->rcu_read_lock_nesting > RCU_NEST_PMAX);
barrier(); /* critical section after entry code. */
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_lock);
@@ -424,20 +431,18 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
} else {
barrier(); /* critical section before exit code. */
- t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = INT_MIN;
+ t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = -RCU_NEST_BIAS;
barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
- {
- int rrln = READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting);
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
+ int rrln = t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
- WARN_ON_ONCE(rrln < 0 && rrln > INT_MIN / 2);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(rrln < 0 && rrln > RCU_NEST_NMAX);
}
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_unlock);
@@ -617,11 +622,11 @@ static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
if (!rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t))
return;
if (couldrecurse)
- t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= INT_MIN;
+ t->rcu_read_lock_nesting -= RCU_NEST_BIAS;
local_irq_save(flags);
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
if (couldrecurse)
- t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += INT_MIN;
+ t->rcu_read_lock_nesting += RCU_NEST_BIAS;
}
/*
