linux-kernel - Re: rcu,sched: spinlock recursion on 3.5-rc2

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:	Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:22:52 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: rcu,sched: spinlock recursion on 3.5-rc2

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 05:07:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:40:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > The torture thread got preempted. rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
> > > tries to unlock the boosting rt mutex.
> > > 
> > > Though rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() is called with rq lock
> > > held. So it's not a surprise that the code will dead lock.
> > > 
> > > My brain hurts already from looking, so Paul to the rescue!
> > 
> > My brain hurts from beating my head on my desk.  It seems that attempts
> > to enhance PREEMPT_RCU's read-side performance require even more paranoia
> > than I normally bring to bear.  :-/
> > 
> > Please see below for what I expect is the relevant revert.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Revert "rcu: Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to switch_to() invocation"
> > 
> > This reverts commit 616c310e83b872024271c915c1b9ab505b9efad9
> > (Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to switch_to() invocation) which can
> > result in runqueue deadlock.
> 
> Hmm, not sure. The deadlock was not triggered in switch_to. It was
> just at the beginning of __schedule()
> 
> need_resched:
> 	preempt_disable();
>         cpu = smp_processor_id();
> 	rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>         rcu_note_context_switch(cpu);
> 	
> 	Which ends up in rcu_read_unlock_special() which tries to
> 	unlock the rtmutex.
> 
> So that code is still there ....

???

rcu_note_context_switch() does not call rcu_preempt_note_context_switch()
unless the patch is reverted.  No rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(),
no rcu_read_unlock_special().

Besides which, unless I am even more confused than normal, __schedule()
doesn't hold any runqueue locks at this point.  However, those locks
really are held across the call to switch_to() in context_switch().

I bet that gcc inlined context_switch().

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/