Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:20:46 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>
Cc:     rostedt@goodmis.org, cl@linux.com, pmladek@suse.com,
        mbenes@suse.cz, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, atomlin@atomlin.com,
        ghalat@redhat.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name, neelx@redhat.com,
        daniel.thompson@linaro.org, hch@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] module: kallsyms: Ensure preemption in add_kallsyms()
 with PREEMPT_RT
Message-ID: <YscV7ujYs6Q60N+E@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20220704161753.4033684-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <YsXNVSAtO+VDggcI@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20220707165750.tk4fadpv3d4zr2mb@ava.usersys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220707165750.tk4fadpv3d4zr2mb@ava.usersys.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> On Wed 2022-07-06 10:58 -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > Hey Aaron, thanks again!
> 
> Hi Luis,
> 
> No problem :)
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:17:53PM +0100, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > > To disable preemption in the context of add_kallsyms() is incorrect.
> > 
> > Why, what broke? Did this used to work? Was the commit in question a
> > regression then? Clarifying all this will help a lot.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion! If I understand correctly, nothing broke
> intrinsically.
> 
> Rather with commit 08126db5ff73 ("module: kallsyms: Fix suspicious rcu
> usage") under PREEMPT_RT=y, by disabling preemption, I introduced an
> unbounded latency since the loop is not fixed which is generally frowned
> upon.

This is incredibly important information which should be added to the
commit log, specialy as PREEMPT_RT=y becomes a first class citizen.

> So, I would say this was a regression since earlier preemption was
> not disabled and we would dereference RCU-protected pointers explicitly
> i.e. without using the more appropriate rcu_dereference() family
> of primitives. That being said, these pointers cannot change in this
> context as explained previously.
> 
> Would the above be suitable - just to confirm before I send another
> iteration?

Yes, I would send this to Linus for the rc series. Please adjust the
commit log with all this information.

BTW I think there is just one more fix pending from you right?

  Luis