linux-kernel - Re: 3.9.x: Possible race related to stop

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:11:05 -0700
From:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: 3.9.x:  Possible race related to stop_machine leads to lockup.

On 06/04/2013 09:41 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> writes:
>> On 06/04/2013 02:18 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>>> I've been trying to figure out why I see the migration/* processes
>>> hang in a busy loop....
>>>
>>> While reading the stop_machine.c file, I think I might have an
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> The set_state() method sets the thread_ack to the current number
>>> of threads.  Each thread's state machine then decrements it down to
>>> zero where it bumps the state to the next level.  This lets each
>>> cpu stop in lock-step it seems.
>>>
>>> But, from what I can tell, the __stop_machine() method can
>>> (re)set the state to STOPMACHINE_PREPARE while the migration
>>> processes are in their loop.  That would explain why they sometimes
>>> loop forever.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense?
>>
>> Err, no..that doesn't make sense.  'smdata' is on the stack.
>>
>> More printk debugging makes it look like one thread just
>> never notices that smdata->state has been updated by another
>> thread.
>>
>> There is this comment..maybe cpu_relax only does the chill out part
>> and we need something else to make sure smdata->state is freshly
>> read from the other CPU's cache?
>>
>> 		/* Chill out and ensure we re-read stopmachine_state. */
>> 		cpu_relax();
>> 		if (smdata->state != curstate) {
>>
>> Gah..way out of my league :P
>
> What architecture?  Maybe someone didn't get the memo; cpu_relax()
> should be a read barrier.

I tried making it and smp read barier, and tried using atomic_t for the state
object.  No big help.

Latest theory is that one thread gets stuck doing IRQs while rest of CPUs have
disabled IRQs and that one CPU/thread never gets back to the cpu shutdown state
machine.

I'll post a more complete debugging patch later today, and try to find
a better way to reproduce it.

Thanks,
Ben
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
>


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

--
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/