linux-kernel - Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at cleanup_workqueue

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: <d82e647a0905192036n22db3f50r58e0a325893c4823@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 May 2009 11:36:10 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at 
	cleanup_workqueue_thread

2009/5/19 Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>:
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:00 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>> > I'm not familiar enough with the code -- but what are we really trying
>> > to do in CPU_POST_DEAD? It seems to me that at that time things must
>> > already be off the CPU, so ...?
>>
>> Yes, this cpu is dead, we should do cleanup_workqueue_thread() to kill
>> cwq->thread.
>>
>> > On the other hand that calls
>> > flush_cpu_workqueue() so it seems it would actually wait for the work to
>> > be executed on some other CPU, within the CPU_POST_DEAD notification?
>>
>> Yes. Because we can't just kill cwq->thread, we can have the pending
>> work_structs so we have to flush.
>>
>> Why can't we move these works to another CPU? We can, but this doesn't
>> really help. Because in any case we should at least wait for
>> cwq->current_work to complete.
>>
>> Why do we use CPU_POST_DEAD, and not (say) CPU_DEAD to flush/kill ?
>> Because work->func() can sleep in get_online_cpus(), we can't flush
>> until we drop cpu_hotplug.lock.
>
> Right. But exactly this happens in the hibernate case -- the hibernate
> code calls kernel/cpu.c:disable_nonboot_cpus() which calls _cpu_down()
> which calls raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_POST_DEAD... Sadly,
> it does so while holding the cpu_add_remove_lock, which is happens to
> have the dependencies outlined in the original email...
>
> The same happens in cpu_down() (without leading _) which you can trigger
> from sysfs by manually removing the CPU, so it's not hibernate specific.
>
> Anyway, you can have a deadlock like this:
>
> CPU 3                   CPU 2                           CPU 1
>                                                        suspend/hibernate
>                        something:
>                        rtnl_lock()                     device_pm_lock()
>                                                        -> mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx)
>
>                        mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx)

Would you give a explaination why mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx) runs in CPU2
and depends on rtnl_lock?
Thanks!

>
> linkwatch_work
>  -> rtnl_lock()
>                                                        disable_nonboot_cpus()
>                                                        -> flush CPU 3 workqueue
>
> johannes
>
>



-- 
Lei Ming
--
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/