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:   Mon, 15 May 2023 20:08:52 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@kernel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hu Chunyu <chuhu@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling
 context
Message-ID: <20230515180851.GD10759@redhat.com>
References: <20230515162249.709839-1-wander@redhat.com>
 <20230515164311.GC10759@redhat.com>
 <CAAq0SUkHDf6Tnhrc5ys4rOGWtepFfdv3=d6GiA=BB7yvDUj8vw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAAq0SUkHDf6Tnhrc5ys4rOGWtepFfdv3=d6GiA=BB7yvDUj8vw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 05/15, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 1:43 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Certainly I have missed something...
> >
> > but,
> >
> > On 05/15, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > >
> > > -extern void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t);
> > > +extern void ___put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t);
> > > +extern void __put_task_struct_rcu_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp);
> >
> > I don't understand these renames, why can't you simply put this fix
> > into put_task_struct() ?
> >
>
> No particular reason, it was just a matter of style and keep the parts simple.

Well, to me a single/simple change in put_task_struct() makes more
sense, but I won't argue.

	static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
	{
		if (!refcount_dec_and_test(...))
			return;

		if (IS_ENABLED(PREEMPT_RT) && ...)
			return call_rcu(...);

		...
		__put_task_struct();
		...
	}

> > > +static inline void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > +{
> > ...
> > > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && !preemptible())
> > > +             call_rcu(&tsk->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
> > > +     else
> > > +             ___put_task_struct(tsk);
> > > +}
> >
> > did you see the emails from Peter? In particular, this one:
> >
> >         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230505133902.GC38236@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> >
>
> I didn't notice the lock_acquire/lock_release part. However, I tested
> the patch with CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING and there was no warning.

Hmm. I tend to trust the Sebastian's analysis in

	https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+zFNrCjBn53%2F+Q2@linutronix.de/

I'll try to look at it later, although I hope Sebastian or Peter
can explain this before I try ;)

Oleg.