[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Restore barrier() to rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:19:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Commit bb73c52bad36 ("rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny and Tree
> RCU readers") removed the barrier() calls from rcu_read_lock() and
> rcu_write_lock() in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n&&CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=n kernels.
> Within RCU, this commit was OK, but it failed to account for things like
> get_user() that can pagefault and that can be reordered by the compiler.
> Lack of the barrier() calls in rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock()
> can cause these page faults to migrate into RCU read-side critical
> sections, which in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels could result in too-short
> grace periods and arbitrary misbehavior. Please see commit 386afc91144b
> ("spinlocks and preemption points need to be at least compiler barriers")
> for more details.
> This commit therefore restores the barrier() call to both rcu_read_lock()
> and rcu_read_unlock(). It also removes them from places in the RCU update
> machinery that used to need compensatory barrier() calls, effectively
> reverting commit bb73c52bad36 ("rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny
> and Tree RCU readers").
> Reported-by: Herbert Xu <>
> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <>

Paul, Linus has already commited his patch:

commit 66be4e66a7f422128748e3c3ef6ee72b20a6197b
Author: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: Mon Jun 3 13:26:20 2019 -0700

rcu: locking and unlocking need to always be at least barriers

So you'll need to rebase this.

Email: Herbert Xu <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-06 15:43    [W:0.057 / U:7.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site