linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run

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

Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:18:57 +0800
From:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] workqueue: not allow recursion run_workqueue

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 12:06 +0100, Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> 
>> Actually I don't understand when Lai says that it will actually not flush.
> 
> Yeah, his changelog is an utter mistery to many..
> 
> 

----
Suppose what I wanted to say is A, but sometimes I wrote B for my poor
English, and people got C when they read it. Thank you, Peter.
----

"if (cwq->thread == current)" is a narrowed checking. lockdep can perform
the proper checking. I think we could hardly write some code which can
perform the proper checking when lockdep is off.

Why "if (cwq->thread == current)" is a narrowed checking,
It hasn't tested "if (brother_cwq->thread == current)". (*brother* cwq)

DEADLOCK EXAMPLE for explain my above option:

(work_func0() and work_func1() are work callback, and they
calls flush_workqueue())

CPU#0					CPU#1
run_workqueue()                         run_workqueue()
  work_func0()                            work_func1()
    flush_workqueue()                       flush_workqueue()
      flush_cpu_workqueue(0)                  .
      flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#1)              flush_cpu_workqueue(cpu#0)
        waiting work_func1() in cpu#1           waiting work_func0 in cpu#0

DEADLOCK!
So we do not allow recursion.
And "BUG_ON(cwq->thread == current)" is not enough(but it's better
than we don't have this line, I think). we should use lockdep to detect
recursion when we develop.

Answer other email-thread:

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 14:03 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> void do_some_cleanup(void)
>> {
>>         find_all_queued_work_struct_and_mark_it_old();
>>         flush_workqueue(workqueue);
>>         /* we can destroy old work_struct for we have flushed them */
>>         destroy_old_work_structs();
>> }
>>
>> if work->func() called do_some_cleanup(), it's very probably a bug.
> 
> Of course it is, if only because calling flush on the same workqueue is
> pretty dumb.

flush_workqueue() should ensure works are finished, but this example shows
the work hasn't finished, so flush_workqueue()'s code is not right.

See also flush_workqueue()'s doc:
 * We sleep until all works which were queued on entry have been handled,
 * but we are not livelocked by new incoming ones.

And this example show a bug(destroy the work which still be used)
for recursion. So in my changlog:

I said it hide deadlock:
   "We use recursion run_workqueue to hidden deadlock when
   keventd trying to flush its own queue."

I said it will be bug(for flush_workqueue() and it's doc is inconsistent):
   "It's bug. When flush_workqueue()(nested in a work callback)returns,
   the workqueue is not really flushed, the sequence statement of
   this work callback will do some thing bad."

And I concluded:
   "So we should not allow workqueue trying to flush its own queue."

If it still mistery, I will explain more.
I will change my changlog too, I sincerely hope you help me more.

Thanks, Lai

> 
> But I'm still not getting it, flush_workqueue() provides the guarantee
> that all work enqueued previous to the call will be finished thereafter.

In my example, flush_workqueue() can't guarantee.

> 
> The self-flush stuff you propose to rip out doesn't violate that
> guarantee afaict.
> 
> Suppose we have a workqueue Q, with pending work W1..Wn.
> 
> Suppose W5 will have the nested flush, it will then recursively complete
> W6..Wn+i, where i accounts for any concurrent worklet additions.
> 
> Therefore it will have completed (at least) those worklets that were
> enqueued at the time flush got called.
> 
> So, to get back at your changelog.
> 
>  1) yes lockdep will complain -- for good reasons, and I'm all for
> getting rid of this mis-feature.
> 
>  2) I've no clue what you're on about
> 
>  3) more mystery.

--
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/