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:   Fri, 26 May 2023 10:08:39 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
        longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, paulmck@kernel.org,
        frederic@kernel.org, quic_neeraju@quicinc.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, qiang1.zhang@intel.com,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] sched: Use fancy new guards
Message-ID: <202305261006.01B34DB4C@keescook>
References: <20230526150549.250372621@infradead.org>
 <20230526151947.027972233@infradead.org>
 <2023052626-blunderer-delegator-4b82@gregkh>
 <d806769b-c568-fa7c-f7aa-ded9ffea11b4@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d806769b-c568-fa7c-f7aa-ded9ffea11b4@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:27:51PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 5/26/23 12:25, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 05:05:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Convert kernel/sched/core.c to use the fancy new guards to simplify
> > > the error paths.
> > 
> > That's slightly crazy...
> > 
> > I like the idea, but is this really correct:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > ---
> > >   kernel/sched/core.c  | 1223 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> > >   kernel/sched/sched.h |   39 +
> > >   2 files changed, 595 insertions(+), 667 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1097,24 +1097,21 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > >   	hk_mask = housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TIMER);
> > > -	rcu_read_lock();
> > > -	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > > -		for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), hk_mask) {
> > > -			if (cpu == i)
> > > -				continue;
> > > +	void_scope(rcu) {
> > > +		for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > > +			for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), hk_mask) {
> > > +				if (cpu == i)
> > > +					continue;
> > > -			if (!idle_cpu(i)) {
> > > -				cpu = i;
> > > -				goto unlock;
> > > +				if (!idle_cpu(i))
> > > +					return i;
> > 
> > You can call return from within a "scope" and it will clean up properly?
> > 
> > I tried to read the cpp "mess" but couldn't figure out how to validate
> > this at all, have a set of tests for this somewhere?
> > 
> > Anyway, the naming is whack, but I don't have a proposed better name,
> > except you might want to put "scope_" as the prefix not the suffix, but
> > then that might look odd to, so who knows.
> 
> FWIW C++ has std::scoped_lock. So perhaps using a similar wording may help ?

Yeah, I like "scoped_*" and "guarded_*" for naming. IMO, it reads better.

-- 
Kees Cook