linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu

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: <20070108152211.GA31263@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:52:11 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:51:03AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Change flush_workqueue() to use for_each_possible_cpu(). This means that
> flush_cpu_workqueue() may hit CPU which is already dead. However in that
> case
> 
> 	if (!list_empty(&cwq->worklist) || cwq->current_work != NULL)
> 
> means that CPU_DEAD in progress, it will do kthread_stop() + take_over_work()
> so we can proceed and insert a barrier. We hold cwq->lock, so we are safe.
> 
> This patch replaces fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race.patch which was
> broken by switching to preempt_disable (now we don't need locking at all).
> Note that migrate_sequence (was hotplug_sequence) is incremented under
> cwq->lock. Since flush_workqueue does lock/unlock of cwq->lock on all CPUs,
> it must see the new value if take_over_work() happened before we checked
> this cwq, and this is the case we should worry about: otherwise we added
> a barrier.
> 
> Srivatsa?

This is head-spinning :)

Spotted atleast these problems:

1. run_workqueue()->work.func()->flush_work()->mutex_lock(workqueue_mutex)
   deadlocks if we are blocked in cleanup_workqueue_thread()->kthread_stop() 
   for the same worker thread to exit.

   Looks possible in practice to me.

2. 

CPU_DEAD->cleanup_workqueue_thread->(cwq->thread = NULL)->kthread_stop() ..
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
						|___ Problematic

Now while we are blocked here, if a work->func() calls
flush_workqueue->flush_cpu_workqueue, we clearly cant identify that event 
thread is trying to flush its own queue (cwq->thread == current test
fails) and hence we will deadlock.

A lock_cpu_hotplug(), or any other ability to block concurrent hotplug 
operations from happening, in run_workqueue would have avoided both the above
races.

Alternatively, for the second race, I guess we can avoid setting 
cwq->thread = NULL in cleanup_workqueue_thread() till the thread has exited, 
but I am not sure if that opens up any other race. The first race seems
harder to fix ..

I wonder if spin (spinroot.com) or some other formal model can make this job of
spotting-races easier for us ..

-- 
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/