| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1208176947.7427.68.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:42:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: ego@...ibm.com
Cc: Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc9 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency
detected
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 17:57 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > Ok, so cpu_hotplug has a few issues imho:
> >
> > - access to active_writer isn't serialized and thus racey
> > - holding the lock over the 'write' section generates the stuff above
> >
> > So basically we want a reader/writer lock, where get/put_online_cpu is
> > the read side and cpu_hotplug_begin/done the write side.
> >
> > We want:
> > - readers to recurse in readers (code excluding cpu-hotplug can
> > call code needing the same).
> >
> > - readers to recurse in the writer (the code changing the state can
> > call code needing a stable state)
> >
> > rwlock_t isn't quite suitable because it doesn't allow reader in writer
> > recursion and doesn't allow sleeping.
> >
> > No lockdep annotation _yet_, because current lockdep recursive reader
> > support is:
> > - broken (have a patch for that)
> > - doesn't support reader in writer recursion (will have to do something
> > about that)
> >
> > Ok, so aside from the obviuos disclaimers, I've only compiled this and
> > might have made things way too complicated - but a slightly feverish
> > brain does that at times. What do people think?
>
> You beat me to it!
>
> I just whipped up a similar patch, with slight differences, and lockdep
> annotations :)
lockdep doesn't quite acecpt reader in writer recursion without a little
patch like so:
(fold of two patches - one fixing the recursion another adding
reader-writer recursion)
cpu_hotplug should use 3.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
Index: linux-2.6-2/kernel/lockdep.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ linux-2.6-2/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1281,6 +1281,13 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr,
*/
if ((read == 2) && prev->read)
return 2;
+ /*
+ * Allow read-after-write recursion of the same
+ * lock class (i.e. write_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
+ */
+ if (read == 3)
+ return 2;
+
return print_deadlock_bug(curr, prev, next);
}
return 1;
@@ -1557,12 +1564,11 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_st
if (!ret)
return 0;
/*
- * Mark recursive read, as we jump over it when
- * building dependencies (just like we jump over
- * trylock entries):
+ * If we are the first recursive read, don't jump over our
+ * dependency.
*/
- if (ret == 2)
- hlock->read = 2;
+ if (hlock->read >= 2 && ret != 2)
+ hlock->read = 1;
/*
* Add dependency only if this lock is not the head
* of the chain, and if it's not a secondary read-lock:
Index: linux-2.6-2/lib/locking-selftest.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ linux-2.6-2/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -1135,12 +1135,12 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
debug_locks_silent = !debug_locks_verbose;
DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-A deadlock", AA);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-B-A deadlock", ABBA);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-B-C-C-A deadlock", ABBCCA);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-C-A-B-C deadlock", ABCABC);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A deadlock", ABBCCDDA);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-C-D-B-D-D-A deadlock", ABCDBDDA);
- DO_TESTCASE_6R("A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock", ABCDBCDA);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-B-A deadlock", ABBA);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-B-C-C-A deadlock", ABBCCA);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-C-A-B-C deadlock", ABCABC);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A deadlock", ABBCCDDA);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-C-D-B-D-D-A deadlock", ABCDBDDA);
+ DO_TESTCASE_6("A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock", ABCDBCDA);
DO_TESTCASE_6("double unlock", double_unlock);
DO_TESTCASE_6("initialize held", init_held);
DO_TESTCASE_6_SUCCESS("bad unlock order", bad_unlock_order);
Index: linux-2.6-2/include/linux/lockdep.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ linux-2.6-2/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ extern void lockdep_init_map(struct lock
* 0: exclusive (write) acquire
* 1: read-acquire (no recursion allowed)
* 2: read-acquire with same-instance recursion allowed
+ * 3: 2 + reader in writer recursion
*
* Values for check:
*
> comments below
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index 2011ad8..119d837 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -27,12 +27,13 @@ static int cpu_hotplug_disabled;
> >
> > static struct {
> > struct task_struct *active_writer;
> > - struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> > + spinlock_t lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> > /*
> > * Also blocks the new readers during
> > * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
> > */
> > int refcount;
> > + wait_queue_head_t reader_queue;
> > wait_queue_head_t writer_queue;
> > } cpu_hotplug;
> >
> > @@ -41,8 +42,9 @@ static struct {
> > void __init cpu_hotplug_init(void)
> > {
> > cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
> > - mutex_init(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + spin_lock_init(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > cpu_hotplug.refcount = 0;
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&cpu_hotplug.reader_queue);
> > init_waitqueue_head(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -51,27 +53,42 @@ void __init cpu_hotplug_init(void)
> > void get_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > might_sleep();
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > - return;
> We don't need to perform this check holding the spinlock.
> The reason being, this check should succeed only for get_online_cpus()
> invoked from the CPU-hotplug callback path. and by that time,
> the writer thread would have set active_writer to it's task struct
> value.
>
> For every other thread, when it's trying to check if it is the
> active_writer, the value is either NULL, or the value of the currently
> active writer's task_struct, but never current.
>
> Am I missing something ?
I guess you're right - inside makes me feel better though :-) And its
not like its a fast path or something like that.
> > - mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > + if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer) {
> > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + prepare_to_wait(&cpu_hotplug.reader_queue, &wait,
> > + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + if (!cpu_hotplug.active_writer)
> > + break;
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + schedule();
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + }
> > + finish_wait(&cpu_hotplug.reader_queue, &wait);
> > + }
> > cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> > - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > -
> > + unlock:
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
> >
> > void put_online_cpus(void)
> > {
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> > - return;
>
> ditto!
>
> > - mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > - cpu_hotplug.refcount--;
> > + goto unlock;
> >
> > - if (unlikely(writer_exists()) && !cpu_hotplug.refcount)
> > + cpu_hotplug.refcount--;
> > + if (!cpu_hotplug.refcount)
> > wake_up(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue);
> hmm.. when there is no active writer, can't we avoid this
> additional wake up ??
> > -
> > - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > -
> > + unlock:
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus);
> >
> > @@ -95,45 +112,41 @@ void cpu_maps_update_done(void)
> > * This ensures that the hotplug operation can begin only when the
> > * refcount goes to zero.
> > *
> > - * Note that during a cpu-hotplug operation, the new readers, if any,
> > - * will be blocked by the cpu_hotplug.lock
> > - *
> > - * Since cpu_maps_update_begin is always called after invoking
> > - * cpu_maps_update_begin, we can be sure that only one writer is active.
> > - *
> > - * Note that theoretically, there is a possibility of a livelock:
> > - * - Refcount goes to zero, last reader wakes up the sleeping
> > - * writer.
> > - * - Last reader unlocks the cpu_hotplug.lock.
> > - * - A new reader arrives at this moment, bumps up the refcount.
> > - * - The writer acquires the cpu_hotplug.lock finds the refcount
> > - * non zero and goes to sleep again.
> > - *
> > - * However, this is very difficult to achieve in practice since
> > - * get_online_cpus() not an api which is called all that often.
> > - *
> > + * cpu_hotplug is basically an unfair recursive reader/writer lock that
> > + * allows reader in writer recursion.
> > */
> > static void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> > {
> > - DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> > -
> > - mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + might_sleep();
> >
> > - cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
> > - add_wait_queue_exclusive(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue, &wait);
> > - while (cpu_hotplug.refcount) {
> > - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > - schedule();
> > - mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + if (cpu_hotplug.refcount || cpu_hotplug.active_writer) {
> if we reach this point, there can be only one writer, i.e.
> ourselves!
>
> Because, the other writers are serialized by the
> cpu_add_remove_lock in cpu_up()/cpu_down().
>
> Hence we can safely assign cpu_hotplug.active_writer to current.
Ah, missed that. Does it make sense to keep it like this, in case this
outer lock goes away?
> > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + prepare_to_wait(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue, &wait,
> > + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + if (!cpu_hotplug.refcount && !cpu_hotplug.active_writer)
> > + break;
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + schedule();
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + }
> > + finish_wait(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue, &wait);
> > }
> > - remove_wait_queue_locked(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue, &wait);
> > + cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
>
>
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > }
> >
> > static void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
> > {
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
> > - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > + if (!list_empty(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue.task_list))
> > + wake_up(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue);
> > + else
> > + wake_up_all(&cpu_hotplug.reader_queue);
> > + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > }
> > /* Need to know about CPUs going up/down? */
> > int __cpuinit register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> >
>
> Looks good otherwise!
Thanks..
lockdep annotations:
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
Index: linux-2.6-2/include/linux/lockdep.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ linux-2.6-2/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -458,4 +458,19 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events
# define rwsem_release(l, n, i) do { } while (0)
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+# ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 2,
i)
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 3,
2, i)
+# else
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 0, 1,
i)
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire(l, s, t, 3,
1, i)
+# endif
+# define cpu_hotplug_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i)
+#else
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire(l, s, t, i) do { } while (0)
+# define cpu_hotplug_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) do { } while (0)
+# define cpu_hotplug_release(l, n, i) do { } while (0)
+#endif
+
#endif /* __LINUX_LOCKDEP_H */
Index: linux-2.6-2/kernel/cpu.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-2.orig/kernel/cpu.c
+++ linux-2.6-2/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -35,12 +35,20 @@ static struct {
int refcount;
wait_queue_head_t reader_queue;
wait_queue_head_t writer_queue;
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+ struct lockdep_map dep_map;
+#endif
} cpu_hotplug;
#define writer_exists() (cpu_hotplug.active_writer != NULL)
void __init cpu_hotplug_init(void)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+ static struct lockdep_class_key __key;
+
+ lockdep_init_map(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map, "cpu_hotplug", &__key, 0);
+#endif
cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
spin_lock_init(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
cpu_hotplug.refcount = 0;
@@ -54,6 +62,8 @@ void get_online_cpus(void)
{
might_sleep();
+ cpu_hotplug_acquire_read(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+
spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
goto unlock;
@@ -80,6 +90,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
void put_online_cpus(void)
{
+ cpu_hotplug_release(&cpu_hotplug.lock, 1, _THIS_IP_);
+
spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
goto unlock;
@@ -119,6 +131,8 @@ static void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
{
might_sleep();
+ cpu_hotplug_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+
spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
if (cpu_hotplug.refcount || cpu_hotplug.active_writer) {
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
@@ -140,6 +154,8 @@ static void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
static void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
{
+ cpu_hotplug_release(&cpu_hotplug.lock, 1, _THIS_IP_);
+
spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
if (!list_empty(&cpu_hotplug.writer_queue.task_list))
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists