linux-kernel - slab: start_cpu_timer/cache_reap CONFIG_HOTPLUG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:13:01 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: slab: start_cpu_timer/cache_reap CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU problems

For the beginning, about another (but related) minor problem,

	debug_smp_processor_id:

		/*
		 * Kernel threads bound to a single CPU can safely use
		 * smp_processor_id():
		 */

This is only true without CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU. Otherwise CPU can go away when
the task takes a preemption or sleeps. I think we need #ifndef here.

Now,
	static void __devinit start_cpu_timer(int cpu)
	{
		struct delayed_work *reap_work = &per_cpu(reap_work, cpu);

		if (keventd_up() && reap_work->work.func == NULL) {
			init_reap_node(cpu);
			INIT_DELAYED_WORK(reap_work, cache_reap);
			schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, reap_work,
						__round_jiffies_relative(HZ, cpu));
		}
	}

This is wrong. Suppose we have a CPU_UP,CPU_DOWN,CPU_UP sequence. The last
CPU_UP will not restart a per-cpu "cache_reap timer".

With or without recent changes, it is possible that work->func() will run on
another CPU (not that to which it was submitted) if CPU goes down. In fact,
this can happen while work->func() is running, so even smp_processor_id()
is not safe to use in work->func().

However, cache_reap() seems to wrongly assume that smp_processor_id() is stable,
this is the second problem.

Is my understanding correct?

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/