linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:32:00 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add generic helpers for arch IPI function calls

On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 08:07 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 20:50 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > > +int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
> > > +			     int retry, int wait)
> > > +{
> > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > +	/* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */
> > > +	int me = get_cpu();
> > > +
> > > +	/* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled */
> > > +	WARN_ON(wait && irqs_disabled());
> > 
> > With this fallback to wait the above condition isn't sufficient.
> 
> What deadlock are you concerned with here? Would making cfd_fallback
> per-cpu make you feel better?

  CPU0					  CPU1

local_irq_disable()			local_irq_disable()

					smp_call_function_single(0,..,0)
					  test_and_set_bit_lock()
					  send IPI
smp_call_function_single(1,..,0)
  while(test_and_set_bit_lock())
    cpu_relax();


This will spin forever, because it needs to handle the IPI in order to
free the cfd_fallback thingy, but can't for its waiting for it.

That particular deadlock can indeed be solved by making cfd_fallback
per-cpu.

But if you were to use multiple smp_call_function*() calls under a
single IRQ disabled, then that would not be sufficient. Now I can't
directly come up with a good reason to need to do that, but still.

You'd need somethine like:

local_irq_disable()

smp_call_function_single(n, func_a,..,0)
smp_call_function_single(m, func_b,..,0)

local_irq_enable()

And invite 3 cpus to the party while under memory pressure and you get
deadlock potential.

[ if it were both the same function, you'd want to use
  smp_call_function() and provide a mask; if it were the same cpu you'd
  want to call a function doing both ]



--
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/