linux-kernel - Re: workqueue deadlock

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]

Message-ID: <20061207061701.GA25744@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:47:01 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: workqueue deadlock

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 05:26:14PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> loadkeys is holding the cpu_hotplug lock (acquired in flush_workqueue())
> and waiting in flush_cpu_workqueue() until the cpu_workqueue drains.
> 
> But events/4 is responsible for draining it, and it is blocked waiting
> to acquire the cpu_hotplug lock.
> 
> In current upstream, the cpu_hotplug lock has been replaced with
> workqueue_mutex, but it looks to me like the same deadlock is still
> possible.

Yes I think so too.

> Is there some rule that workqueue functions shouldn't try to
> flush a workqueue?  

In general, workqueue functions wanting to flush workqueue seems wierd
to me. But in this case, I think the requirement is to block until all
queued work is complete, which is what flush_workqueue is supposed to
do. Hence I dont see any way to avoid it ..

> Or should flush_workqueue() be smarter by
> releasing the workqueue_mutex once in a while?

IMHO, rehauling lock_cpu_hotplug() to support scenarios like this is a
better approach. 

	- Make it rw-sem
	- Make it per-cpu mutex, which could be either:

		http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/30/110 - Ingo's suggestion
		http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65 - Gautham's work based on RCU

In Ingo's suggestion, I really dont know if the task_struct
modifications is a good thing (to support recursive requirements).
Gautham's patches avoid modifications to task_struct, is fast but can
starve writers (who want to bring down/up a CPU).

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/