linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] smp: Give WARN()ing when calling smp_call_function

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:	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:02:39 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
cc:	Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jbeulich@...e.com,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mina86@...a86.org,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jun.zhang@...el.com,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Alex Nemirovsky <Alex.Nemirovsky@...tina-systems.com>,
	Artemi Ivanov <artemi.ivanov@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] smp: Give WARN()ing when calling smp_call_function_many()/single()
 in serving irq

On Fri, 6 Dec 2013, Max Filippov wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> >> > Currently the functions smp_call_function_many()/single() will
> >> > give a WARN()ing only in the case of irqs_disabled(), but that
> >> > check is not enough to guarantee execution of the SMP
> >> > cross-calls.
> >> >
> >> > In many other cases such as softirq handling/interrupt handling,
> >> > the two APIs still can not be called, just as the
> >> > smp_call_function_many() comments say:
> >> >
> >> >   * You must not call this function with disabled interrupts or from a
> >> >   * hardware interrupt handler or from a bottom half handler. Preemption
> >> >   * must be disabled when calling this function.
> >> >
> >> > There is a real case for softirq DEADLOCK case:
> >> >
> >> > CPUA                            CPUB
> >> >                                 spin_lock(&spinlock)
> >> >                                 Any irq coming, call the irq handler
> >> >                                 irq_exit()
> >> > spin_lock_irq(&spinlock)
> >> > <== Blocking here due to
> >> > CPUB hold it
> >> >                                   __do_softirq()
> >> >                                     run_timer_softirq()
> >> >                                       timer_cb()
> >> >                                         call smp_call_function_many()
> >> >                                           send IPI interrupt to CPUA
> >> >                                             wait_csd()
> >> >
> >> > Then both CPUA and CPUB will be deadlocked here.
> >>
> >> That's not true if called with wait = 0 as we won't wait for the csd
> >> in that case. The function will be invoked on cpuA after it reenables
> >> interrupt. So for callers who don't care about synchronous execution
> >> it should not warn in softirq context.
> >
> > Hmm, even there it matters, because of the following scenario:
> >
> > CPU 0
> > smp_call_function_single(CPU 1)
> >     csd_lock(CPU 1)
> >     irq_enter()
> >     irq_exit()
> >     __do_softirq()
> >     smp_call_function_many()
> >       setup csd (CPU 1)
> >         csd_lock(CPU 1) ==> CPU 0 deadlocked itself.
> >
> > And this is even more likely to happen than the lock issue.
> 
> I've observed similar deadlock in a real system which has network
> driver that uses smp_call_function_single in the softirq context.
> 
> The proposed fix below keeps IRQs disabled on the sending CPU
> during the period between marking csd locked and sending IPI,
> making it possible to use smp_call_function_single from the softirq
> context. What do you think?

I'm not really exited to encourage IPIs from irq context. Just because
some network driver uses it, is definitely not a good argument. If we
really want to support that, then we need a proper justification why
it is necessary in the first place.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/