| 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, 8 Aug 2016 19:04:12 +0200
From: Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] bug: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in
rr_select_path()
On 10:39 Mon 08 Aug , Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 08/08/2016 10:32 AM, Benjamin Block wrote:
> >On 12:06 Fri 05 Aug , Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>On Fri, Aug 05 2016 at 11:54am -0400,
> >>Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 08/05/2016 09:42 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, Aug 05 2016 at 11:33P -0400,
> >>>>Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 08/05/2016 09:27 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>>>>>On Wed, Aug 03 2016 at 11:35am -0400,
> >>>>>>Benjamin Block <bblock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Hej Mike,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>when running a debug-kernel today with several multipath-devices using
> >>>>>>>the round-robin path selector I noticed that the kernel throws these
> >>>>>>>warnings here:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: kdmwork-252:0/881
> >>>>>>>caller is rr_select_path+0x36/0x108 [dm_round_robin]
> >>>>>>>CPU: 1 PID: 881 Comm: kdmwork-252:0 Not tainted 4.7.0-debug #4
> >>>>>>> 00000000617679b8 0000000061767a48 0000000000000002 0000000000000000
> >>>>>>> 0000000061767ae8 0000000061767a60 0000000061767a60 00000000001145d0
> >>>>>>> 0000000000000000 0000000000b962ae 0000000000bb291e 000000000000000b
> >>>>>>> 0000000061767aa8 0000000061767a48 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> >>>>>>> 0700000000b962ae 00000000001145d0 0000000061767a48 0000000061767aa8
> >>>>>>>Call Trace:
> >>>>>>>([<00000000001144a2>] show_trace+0x8a/0xe0)
> >>>>>>>([<0000000000114586>] show_stack+0x8e/0xf0)
> >>>>>>>([<00000000006c7fdc>] dump_stack+0x9c/0xe0)
> >>>>>>>([<00000000006fbbc0>] check_preemption_disabled+0x108/0x130)
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff80268646>] rr_select_path+0x36/0x108 [dm_round_robin])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff80259a42>] choose_path_in_pg+0x42/0xc8 [dm_multipath])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff80259b62>] choose_pgpath+0x9a/0x1a0 [dm_multipath])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff8025b51a>] __multipath_map.isra.5+0x72/0x228 [dm_multipath])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff8025b75e>] multipath_map+0x3e/0x50 [dm_multipath])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff80225eb6>] map_request+0x66/0x458 [dm_mod])
> >>>>>>>([<000003ff802262ec>] map_tio_request+0x44/0x70 [dm_mod])
> >>>>>>>([<000000000016835a>] kthread_worker_fn+0xf2/0x1d8)
> >>>>>>>([<00000000001681da>] kthread+0x112/0x120)
> >>>>>>>([<000000000098378a>] kernel_thread_starter+0x6/0xc)
> >>>>>>>([<0000000000983784>] kernel_thread_starter+0x0/0xc)
> >>>>>>>no locks held by kdmwork-252:0/881.
> >>>>>>>
> >[:snip:]
> >>>
> >>>I always forget the details (if this confuses lockdep or not), but you
> >>>could potentially turn it into:
> >>>
> >>>local_irq_save(flags);
> >>>x = this_cpu_ptr();
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>spin_lock(&s->lock);
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>instead.
> >>
> >>Cool, I've coded up the patch (compile tested only).
> >>
> >>Benjamin, any chance you could test this against your v4.7 kernel and
> >>report back?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-round-robin.c b/drivers/md/dm-round-robin.c
> >>index 4ace1da..ed446f8 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/md/dm-round-robin.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/md/dm-round-robin.c
> >>@@ -210,14 +210,17 @@ static struct dm_path *rr_select_path(struct path_selector *ps, size_t nr_bytes)
> >> struct path_info *pi = NULL;
> >> struct dm_path *current_path = NULL;
> >>
> >>+ local_irq_save(flags);
> >> current_path = *this_cpu_ptr(s->current_path);
> >> if (current_path) {
> >> percpu_counter_dec(&s->repeat_count);
> >>- if (percpu_counter_read_positive(&s->repeat_count) > 0)
> >>+ if (percpu_counter_read_positive(&s->repeat_count) > 0) {
> >>+ local_irq_restore(flags);
> >> return current_path;
> >>+ }
> >> }
> >>
> >>- spin_lock_irqsave(&s->lock, flags);
> >>+ spin_lock(&s->lock);
> >> if (!list_empty(&s->valid_paths)) {
> >> pi = list_entry(s->valid_paths.next, struct path_info, list);
> >> list_move_tail(&pi->list, &s->valid_paths);
> >>@@ -225,7 +228,8 @@ static struct dm_path *rr_select_path(struct path_selector *ps, size_t nr_bytes)
> >> set_percpu_current_path(s, pi->path);
> >> current_path = pi->path;
> >> }
> >>- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&s->lock, flags);
> >>+ spin_unlock(&s->lock);
> >>+ local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>
> >> return current_path;
> >> }
> >>
> >
> >Ok, this works as far as the warnings don't appear anymore. But while
> >applying the patch and thinking about it, why local_irq_save() and not
> >preempt_disable()? "Sounds" like this is the function you want, and I
> >also stumbled across this in Documentation/preempt-locking.txt:
> >
> > But keep in mind that 'irqs disabled' is a fundamentally unsafe way of
> > disabling preemption - any spin_unlock() decreasing the preemption
> > count to 0 might trigger a reschedule.
> >
> >The spinlock would do an other nested preempt_disable(), but those even
> >out.
>
> local_irq_save(), since we need to grab the lock irq safe very shortly
> anyway. As long as they nest properly, the approach is fine, and it's
> more efficient than first doing a preempt_disable(), then still needing
> a irq safe spinlock.
>
Fair enough, it also doesn't look like the code is doing anything that
could trigger a reschedule.
Beste Grüße / Best regards,
- Benjamin Block
--
Linux on z Systems Development / IBM Systems & Technology Group
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitz. AufsR.: Martina Koederitz / Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294
Powered by blists - more mailing lists