| 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: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:39:32 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rcu: eliminate deadlock for rcu read site
On 08/26/2013 01:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:19:37PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Hi, Steven
>>
>> Any comments about this patch?
>
> For whatever it is worth, it ran without incident for two hours worth
> of rcutorture on my P5 test (boosting but no CPU hotplug).
>
> Lai, do you have a specific test for this patch?
Also rcutorture.
(A special module is added to ensure all paths of my code are covered.)
> Your deadlock
> scenario looks plausible, but is apparently not occurring in the
> mainline kernel.
Yes, you can leave this possible bug until the real problem happens
or just disallow overlapping.
I can write some debug code for it which allow us find out
the problems earlier.
I guess this is an useful usage pattern of rcu:
again:
rcu_read_lock();
obj = read_dereference(ptr);
spin_lock_XX(obj->lock);
if (obj is invalid) {
spin_unlock_XX(obj->lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
goto again;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
# use obj
spin_unlock_XX(obj->lock);
If we encourage this pattern, we should fix all the related problems.
Thanks,
Lai
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>> Thanks,
>> Lai
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [PATCH] rcu/rt_mutex: eliminate a kind of deadlock for rcu read site
>>>
>>> Current rtmutex's lock->wait_lock doesn't disables softirq nor irq, it will
>>> cause rcu read site deadlock when rcu overlaps with any
>>> softirq-context/irq-context lock.
>>>
>>> @L is a spinlock of softirq or irq context.
>>>
>>> CPU1 cpu2(rcu boost)
>>> rcu_read_lock() rt_mutext_lock()
>>> <preemption and reschedule back> raw_spin_lock(lock->wait_lock)
>>> spin_lock_XX(L) <interrupt and doing softirq or
>>> irq>
>>> rcu_read_unlock() do_softirq()
>>> rcu_read_unlock_special()
>>> rt_mutext_unlock()
>>> raw_spin_lock(lock->wait_lock) spin_lock_XX(L) **DEADLOCK**
>>>
>>> This patch fixes this kind of deadlock by removing rt_mutext_unlock() from
>>> rcu_read_unlock(), new rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() is called instead.
>>> Thus rtmutex's lock->wait_lock will not be called from rcu_read_unlock().
>>>
>>> This patch does not eliminate all kinds of rcu-read-site deadlock,
>>> if @L is a scheduler lock, it will be deadlock, we should apply Paul's rule
>>> in this case.(avoid overlapping or preempt_disable()).
>>>
>>> rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() requires the @waiter is queued, so we
>>> can't directly call rt_mutex_lock(&mtx) in the rcu_boost thread,
>>> we split rt_mutex_lock(&mtx) into two steps just like pi-futex.
>>> This result a internal state in rcu_boost thread and cause
>>> rcu_boost thread a bit more complicated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Lai
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> index 5cd0f09..8830874 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> #define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST() \
>>> - .rcu_boost_mutex = NULL,
>>> + .rcu_boost_waiter = NULL,
>>> #else
>>> #define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
>>> #endif
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> index e9995eb..1eca99f 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -1078,7 +1078,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>> struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> - struct rt_mutex *rcu_boost_mutex;
>>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter *rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
>>> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ static inline void rcu_copy_process(struct
>>> task_struct *p)
>>> p->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> - p->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
>>> + p->rcu_boost_waiter = NULL;
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->rcu_node_entry);
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> index 769e12e..d207ddd 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>>> #define RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO 1
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +#include "rtmutex_common.h"
>>> #define RCU_BOOST_PRIO CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_PRIO
>>> #else
>>> #define RCU_BOOST_PRIO RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO
>>> @@ -340,7 +341,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> struct list_head *np;
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> - struct rt_mutex *rbmp = NULL;
>>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter = NULL;
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> struct rcu_node *rnp;
>>> int special;
>>> @@ -397,10 +398,10 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
>>> rnp->boost_tasks = np;
>>> - /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock
>>> held. */
>>> - if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
>>> - rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
>>> - t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
>>> + /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_waiter with rcu_node lock
>>> held. */
>>> + if (t->rcu_boost_waiter) {
>>> + waiter = t->rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> + t->rcu_boost_waiter = NULL;
>>> }
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>> @@ -426,8 +427,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> /* Unboost if we were boosted. */
>>> - if (rbmp)
>>> - rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
>>> + if (waiter)
>>> + rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(t, waiter);
>>> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -1129,9 +1130,6 @@ void exit_rcu(void)
>>> #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> -
>>> -#include "rtmutex_common.h"
>>> -
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
>>>
>>> static void rcu_initiate_boost_trace(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>> @@ -1181,14 +1179,15 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> struct rt_mutex mtx;
>>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> struct task_struct *t;
>>> struct list_head *tb;
>>> + int ret;
>>>
>>> if (rnp->exp_tasks == NULL && rnp->boost_tasks == NULL)
>>> return 0; /* Nothing left to boost. */
>>>
>>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> -
>>> /*
>>> * Recheck under the lock: all tasks in need of boosting
>>> * might exit their RCU read-side critical sections on their own.
>>> @@ -1215,7 +1214,7 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * We boost task t by manufacturing an rt_mutex that appears to
>>> - * be held by task t. We leave a pointer to that rt_mutex where
>>> + * be held by task t. We leave a pointer to that rt_mutex_waiter
>>> where
>>> * task t can find it, and task t will release the mutex when it
>>> * exits its outermost RCU read-side critical section. Then
>>> * simply acquiring this artificial rt_mutex will boost task
>>> @@ -1230,11 +1229,30 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>> * section.
>>> */
>>> t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
>>> + get_task_struct(t);
>>> rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
>>> - t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
>>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> - rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
>>> - rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
>>> +
>>> + debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&rcu_boost_waiter);
>>> + /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
>>> + ret = rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(&mtx, &rcu_boost_waiter, current,
>>> 0);
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret)) {
>>> + put_task_struct(t);
>>> + return 0; /* temporary stop boosting */
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> + if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->exp_tasks ||
>>> + &t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks) {
>>> + t->rcu_boost_waiter = &rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> + } else {
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> + rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(t, &rcu_boost_waiter);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + put_task_struct(t);
>>> + rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(&mtx, NULL, &rcu_boost_waiter, 0);
>>>
>>> return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||
>>> ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->boost_tasks) != NULL;
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> index 0dd6aec..2f3caee 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> @@ -734,6 +734,43 @@ rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
>>> rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +/*
>>> + * rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() - unlock in irq/bh/process context
>>> + *
>>> + * please revert the patch which introduces this function when
>>> + * rt_mutex's ->wait_lock is irq-off.
>>> + */
>>> +void rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(struct task_struct *owner,
>>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + struct rt_mutex *lock = waiter->lock;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * The correction of the following code is based on
>>> + * 1) current lock is owned by @owner
>>> + * 2) only one task(@waiter->task) is waiting on the @lock
>>> + * 3) the @waiter has been queued and keeps been queued
>>> + */
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != owner))
>>> + return; /* 1) */
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock) != waiter))
>>> + return; /* 2) & 3) */
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(plist_node_empty(&waiter->pi_list_entry)))
>>> + return; /* 2) & 3) */
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>>> + plist_del(&waiter->pi_list_entry, &owner->pi_waiters);
>>> + lock->owner = NULL;
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + wake_up_process(waiter->task);
>>> + /* Undo pi boosting if necessary: */
>>> + rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
>>> +}
>>> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * debug aware fast / slowpath lock,trylock,unlock
>>> *
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> index 53a66c8..3cdbe82 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,11 @@ extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex
>>> *lock,
>>> struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
>>> int detect_deadlock);
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +void rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(struct task_struct *owner,
>>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
>>> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> +
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
>>> # include "rtmutex-debug.h"
>>> #else
>>>
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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