| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:51:32 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
andreas.herrmann3@....com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29 boot hang
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009 07:15:35 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On a 4-proc x86_64 (HP BladeCenter, AMD CPUs) system, booting 2.6.29
>> (or earlier, back to 2.6.28-6921-g873392c) hangs during boot.
>>
>> git bisect says:
>> 873392ca514f87eae39f53b6944caf85b1a047cb is first bad commit
>> commit 873392ca514f87eae39f53b6944caf85b1a047cb
>> Author: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
>> Date: Wed Dec 31 23:54:56 2008 +1030
>>
>> PCI: work_on_cpu: use in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
>
> ...
>
>> If I change CONFIG_MICROCODE_AMD=y to CONFIG_MICROCODE_AMD=n & rebuild,
>> the kernel boots successfully.
>
> How very very odd. My first thought was a deadlock with keventd used
> by work_on_cpu (changed in latest Linus tree), but the microcode code at
> that version doesn't use work_on_cpu.
Yep, I thought it a bit odd also.
> So I don't think that's it, but this patch should canonically eliminate it:
>
> Subject: work_on_cpu(): rewrite it to create a kernel thread on demand
> From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
This patch doesn't apply to 2.6.29-final, but it does apply to 2.6.29-git8,
so I applied/tested it there. with surprising results (at least to me).
2.6.29-git8 works for me without any patches applied. After applying
this patch, I get the same boot hang that I was seeing with 2.6.29-final.
Make sense to you??
Thanks for your help.
> The various implemetnations and proposed implemetnations of work_on_cpu()
> are vulnerable to various deadlocks because they all used queues of some
> form.
>
> Unrelated pieces of kernel code thus gained dependencies wherein if one
> work_on_cpu() caller holds a lock which some other work_on_cpu() callback
> also takes, the kernel could rarely deadlock.
>
> Fix this by creating a short-lived kernel thread for each work_on_cpu()
> invokation.
>
> This is not terribly fast, but the only current caller of work_on_cpu() is
> pci_call_probe().
>
> It would be nice to find some other way of doing the node-local
> allocations in the PCI probe code so that we can zap work_on_cpu()
> altogether. The code there is rather nasty. I can't think of anything
> simple at this time...
>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN kernel/workqueue.c~work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand kernel/workqueue.c
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c~work_on_cpu-rewrite-it-to-create-a-kernel-thread-on-demand
> +++ a/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -985,20 +985,20 @@ undo:
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -static struct workqueue_struct *work_on_cpu_wq __read_mostly;
>
> struct work_for_cpu {
> - struct work_struct work;
> + struct completion completion;
> long (*fn)(void *);
> void *arg;
> long ret;
> };
>
> -static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_struct *w)
> +static int do_work_for_cpu(void *_wfc)
> {
> - struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(w, struct work_for_cpu, work);
> -
> + struct work_for_cpu *wfc = _wfc;
> wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
> + complete(&wfc->completion);
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1009,17 +1009,23 @@ static void do_work_for_cpu(struct work_
> *
> * This will return the value @fn returns.
> * It is up to the caller to ensure that the cpu doesn't go offline.
> + * The caller must not hold any locks which would prevent @fn from completing.
> */
> long work_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
> {
> - struct work_for_cpu wfc;
> -
> - INIT_WORK(&wfc.work, do_work_for_cpu);
> - wfc.fn = fn;
> - wfc.arg = arg;
> - queue_work_on(cpu, work_on_cpu_wq, &wfc.work);
> - flush_work(&wfc.work);
> -
> + struct task_struct *sub_thread;
> + struct work_for_cpu wfc = {
> + .completion = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(wfc.completion),
> + .fn = fn,
> + .arg = arg,
> + };
> +
> + sub_thread = kthread_create(do_work_for_cpu, &wfc, "work_for_cpu");
> + if (IS_ERR(sub_thread))
> + return PTR_ERR(sub_thread);
> + kthread_bind(sub_thread, cpu);
> + wake_up_process(sub_thread);
> + wait_for_completion(&wfc.completion);
> return wfc.ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
> @@ -1035,8 +1041,4 @@ void __init init_workqueues(void)
> hotcpu_notifier(workqueue_cpu_callback, 0);
> keventd_wq = create_workqueue("events");
> BUG_ON(!keventd_wq);
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - work_on_cpu_wq = create_workqueue("work_on_cpu");
> - BUG_ON(!work_on_cpu_wq);
> -#endif
> }
> _
--
~Randy
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists