| 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: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:06:44 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <roland@...italvampire.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: lockdep warns about deadlock in cpufreq
Hi, I got the lockdep warning below about the cpufreq ondemand module.
It looks as if there is a real deadlock window; if I'm interpreting
the lockdep output correctly, the issue is the following conflicting
chains of locking dependencies:
dbs_info->work -> do_dbs_timer() -> lock_policy_rwsem_write()
vs.
store() -> lock_policy_rwsem_write() -> store_scaling_governor() ->
cpufreq_governor_dbs() -> cancel_delayed_work_sync() -> dbs_info->work
It seems this issue was introduced in b14893a6 ("[CPUFREQ] fix timer
teardown in ondemand governor") and only partially addressed in
42a06f21 ("[CPUFREQ] remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call").
That patch moved the unlock_policy_rwsem_write() up so it didn't cover
the call to CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP in __cpufreq_remove_dev(); but the policy
rwsem is still held across the call to CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP in
__cpufreq_set_policy() when called from store()/store_scaling_governor().
It's not immediately clear to me what the best way to fix this is;
I'll look at it some more tomorrow but if someone else wants to beat
me to it, that's great.
Full lockdep output below; the kernel I'm running is basically
Ubuntu's tree with mainline pulled in, but the issue appears to be
there in pure mainline code.
Thanks,
Roland
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.31-2-generic #14~rbd4gitd960eea9
-------------------------------------------------------
94cpufreq/26300 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81073480>] wait_on_work+0x0/0x150
but task is already holding lock:
(dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81425011>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xe1/0x390
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff8108c8a7>] check_prev_add+0x2a7/0x370
[<ffffffff8108cfd1>] validate_chain+0x661/0x750
[<ffffffff8108d2f7>] __lock_acquire+0x237/0x430
[<ffffffff8108d595>] lock_acquire+0xa5/0x150
[<ffffffff8155344d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x3d0
[<ffffffff815538d6>] mutex_lock_nested+0x46/0x60
[<ffffffff8142509c>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x16c/0x390
[<ffffffff81421bb6>] __cpufreq_governor+0x66/0xf0
[<ffffffff81422603>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x133/0x170
[<ffffffff81422cc6>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0xf0
[<ffffffff81423057>] store+0x67/0xa0
[<ffffffff811990a9>] sysfs_write_file+0xd9/0x160
[<ffffffff8112fe08>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x1a0
[<ffffffff811308d1>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
[<ffffffff81013132>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
-> #1 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}:
[<ffffffff8108c8a7>] check_prev_add+0x2a7/0x370
[<ffffffff8108cfd1>] validate_chain+0x661/0x750
[<ffffffff8108d2f7>] __lock_acquire+0x237/0x430
[<ffffffff8108d595>] lock_acquire+0xa5/0x150
[<ffffffff81553c27>] down_write+0x47/0x60
[<ffffffff81422fb2>] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x52/0x90
[<ffffffff814256fa>] do_dbs_timer+0x6a/0x110
[<ffffffff81071cc8>] run_workqueue+0xf8/0x240
[<ffffffff81071ec4>] worker_thread+0xb4/0x130
[<ffffffff810773ce>] kthread+0x9e/0xb0
[<ffffffff8101430a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
-> #0 (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}:
[<ffffffff8108c685>] check_prev_add+0x85/0x370
[<ffffffff8108cfd1>] validate_chain+0x661/0x750
[<ffffffff8108d2f7>] __lock_acquire+0x237/0x430
[<ffffffff8108d595>] lock_acquire+0xa5/0x150
[<ffffffff810734d5>] wait_on_work+0x55/0x150
[<ffffffff81073619>] __cancel_work_timer+0x49/0x110
[<ffffffff810736f2>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x12/0x20
[<ffffffff81425021>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xf1/0x390
[<ffffffff81421bb6>] __cpufreq_governor+0x66/0xf0
[<ffffffff814225ed>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x11d/0x170
[<ffffffff81422cc6>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0xf0
[<ffffffff81423057>] store+0x67/0xa0
[<ffffffff811990a9>] sysfs_write_file+0xd9/0x160
[<ffffffff8112fe08>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x1a0
[<ffffffff811308d1>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
[<ffffffff81013132>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
3 locks held by 94cpufreq/26300:
#0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81199014>] sysfs_write_file+0x44/0x160
#1: (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}, at: [<ffffffff81422fb2>] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x52/0x90
#2: (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81425011>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xe1/0x390
stack backtrace:
Pid: 26300, comm: 94cpufreq Tainted: G C 2.6.31-2-generic #14~rbd4gitd960eea9
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8108b998>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xa8/0xf0
[<ffffffff8108c685>] check_prev_add+0x85/0x370
[<ffffffff8108cfd1>] validate_chain+0x661/0x750
[<ffffffff8108d2f7>] __lock_acquire+0x237/0x430
[<ffffffff8108d595>] lock_acquire+0xa5/0x150
[<ffffffff81073480>] ? wait_on_work+0x0/0x150
[<ffffffff810734d5>] wait_on_work+0x55/0x150
[<ffffffff81073480>] ? wait_on_work+0x0/0x150
[<ffffffff8108c03c>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6c/0xa0
[<ffffffff81554e30>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x40/0x70
[<ffffffff8108c35d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x190
[<ffffffff8108c3ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[<ffffffff81073619>] __cancel_work_timer+0x49/0x110
[<ffffffff810736f2>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x12/0x20
[<ffffffff81425021>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xf1/0x390
[<ffffffff8107c11b>] ? up_read+0x2b/0x40
[<ffffffff81421bb6>] __cpufreq_governor+0x66/0xf0
[<ffffffff814225ed>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x11d/0x170
[<ffffffff81422cc6>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0xf0
[<ffffffff81423190>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x20
[<ffffffff81553c2f>] ? down_write+0x4f/0x60
[<ffffffff81423057>] store+0x67/0xa0
[<ffffffff811990a9>] sysfs_write_file+0xd9/0x160
[<ffffffff8112fe08>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x1a0
[<ffffffff811308d1>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
[<ffffffff81013132>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
--
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