linux-kernel - Re: Re: [patch] ARM: smpboot: Enable interrupts after marking CPU online/active

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:	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:00:59 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Stepan Moskovchenko <stepanm@...eaurora.org>
cc:	Dima Zavin <dima@...roid.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
	amit kachhap <amit.kachhap@...aro.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	chaos.youn@...sung.com, LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [patch] ARM: smpboot: Enable interrupts after marking CPU
 online/active

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011, Stepan Moskovchenko wrote:
> I am seeing a deadlock when executing hotplug operations with this patch
> applied. When the secondary CPU gets brought up in _cpu_up, the cpu is turned
> on
> and then the online notifier gets called, which is what marks the secondary
> CPU
> as active. If _cpu_up on the primary CPU is preempted before the secondary CPU
> is marked active, it is possible that the primary CPU will want to call
> smp_call_function (or send an IPI) to the secondary CPU because it is marked
> online. However, with this patch, the secondary CPU is still spinning on
> !cpu_active(cpu)
> with interrupts disabled. So, the primary CPU is now stuck in csd_lock_wait(),
> waiting for the secondary CPU to respond, while the secondary CPU spins with
> interrupts disabled, waiting for the primary CPU to mark it as active. So,
> while
> your approach to not call smp_function_single may work for you in your
> specific
> case, I believe there is still a problem in the general case.
> 
> One suggestion for resolving this might be making smp_call_function look at
> the
> active CPUs rather than online CPUs, or to just let the secondary CPU mark
> itself as active rather than having the primary CPU do this, though this might
> defeat the original intended purpose of the active mask.

What a mess. I'll have a look tomorrow.
--
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/