linux-kernel - Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu

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, 7 Feb 2017 12:43:27 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc

On Tue 07-02-17 11:34:35, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 07-02-17 10:28:09, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:49:28AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > On 02/07/2017 10:43 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > If I'm reading this right, a hot-remove will set the pool POOL_DISASSOCIATED
> > > > > and unbound. A workqueue queued for draining get migrated during hot-remove
> > > > > and a drain operation will execute twice on a CPU -- one for what was
> > > > > queued and a second time for the CPU it was migrated from. It should still
> > > > > work with flush_work which doesn't appear to block forever if an item
> > > > > got migrated to another workqueue. The actual drain workqueue function is
> > > > > using the CPU ID it's currently running on so it shouldn't get confused.
> > > > 
> > > > Is the worker that will process this migrated workqueue also guaranteed
> > > > to be pinned to a cpu for the whole work, though? drain_local_pages()
> > > > needs that guarantee.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It should be by running on a workqueue handler bound to that CPU (queued
> > > on wq->cpu_pwqs in __queue_work)
> > 
> > Are you sure? The comment in kernel/workqueue.c says
> >          * While DISASSOCIATED, the cpu may be offline and all workers have
> >          * %WORKER_UNBOUND set and concurrency management disabled, and may
> >          * be executing on any CPU.  The pool behaves as an unbound one.
> > 
> > I might be misreadig but an unbound pool can be handled by workers which
> > are not pinned on any cpu AFAIU.
> 
> Right. The unbind operation can set a mask that is any allowable CPU and
> the final process_work is not done in a context that prevents
> preemption.
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3b93879990fd..7af165d308c4 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2342,7 +2342,14 @@ void drain_local_pages(struct zone *zone)
>  
>  static void drain_local_pages_wq(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> +	/*
> +	 * Ordinarily a drain operation is bound to a CPU but may be unbound
> +	 * after a CPU hotplug operation so it's necessary to disable
> +	 * preemption for the drain to stabilise the CPU ID.
> +	 */
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	drain_local_pages(NULL);
> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
>  }
>  
>  /*
[...]
> @@ -6711,7 +6714,16 @@ static int page_alloc_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  
>  	lru_add_drain_cpu(cpu);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * A per-cpu drain via a workqueue from drain_all_pages can be
> +	 * rescheduled onto an unrelated CPU. That allows the hotplug
> +	 * operation and the drain to potentially race on the same
> +	 * CPU. Serialise hotplug versus drain using pcpu_drain_mutex
> +	 */
> +	mutex_lock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
>  	drain_pages(cpu);
> +	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);

You cannot put sleepable lock inside the preempt disbaled section...
We can make it a spinlock right?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs