| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:36:51 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:07:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 05:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:29:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 07:05 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] -> #1 (rcu_node_level_0){..-...}:
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8108b7e5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x140
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8157808b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba797>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x197/0x2d0
Yow... Looks like rcu_read_unlock_special() is being inlined
into __rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8103f2f5>] select_task_rq_fair+0x585/0xa80
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8104633b>] try_to_wake_up+0x17b/0x360
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81046575>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x20
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810528f4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x100
OK, so all the above stuff is in the context of an irq handler, right?
In which case, why didn't the in_irq() check kick us out before we
had a chance to attempt to acquire any locks?
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8158197e>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x99
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81580c53>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba6e9>] __rcu_read_unlock+0xe9/0x2d0
> > > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff814c20d4>] sock_def_readable+0x94/0xc0
> > >
> > > Ed, are you perchance running with force_irqthreads?
Ah! Would that mean that local_irq_save() gets mapped to locking?
Now -that- could be exciting! ;-)
> > > Paul, what appears to be happening here is that some rcu_read_unlock()
> > > gets interrupted, possibly before calling rcu_read_unlock_special(),
> > > possibly not if the interrupt is itself the timer interrupt.
> > >
> > > Supposing ->rcu_read_unlock_special is set before, any wakeup happening
> > > from an interrupt hitting __rcu_read_unlock():
> > >
> > > void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > {
> > > struct task_struct *t = current;
> > >
> > > barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> > > --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > > barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> > > if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > > }
> > >
> > > After --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting, but before calling
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special(), will trigger this lock inversion.
> > >
> > > The alternative case, ->rcu_read_unlock_special is not set yet, it can
> > > be set if the interrupt hitting in that same spot above, is the timer
> > > interrupt, and the wakeup happens either from the softirq ran from the
> > > hard IRQ tail, or as I suspect here happens, the wakeup of ksoftirqd/#.
>
> OK, so the latter case cannot happen (rcu_preempt_check_callbacks only
> sets NEED_QS when rcu_read_lock_nesting), we need two interrupts for
> this to happen.
>
> rcu_read_lock()
>
> <IRQ>
> |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS
>
> rcu_read_unlock()
> __rcu_read_unlock()
> --rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> <IRQ>
> ttwu()
> rcu_read_lock()
> rcu_read_unlock()
> rcu_read_unlock_special()
> *BANG*
> rcu_read_unlock_special()
The "*BANG*" indicating that the upper-level rcu_read_unlock_special()
might overwrite the lower-level rcu_read_unlock_special()'s attempt
to clear RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS? (Which I believe, perhaps
incorrectly, to be prevented by the fact that all modifications to
->rcu_read_unlock_special are carried out with irqs disabled on the
corresponding CPU, at least given no RCU_BOOST.) The check for in_irq()
should prevent the from-irq rcu_read_unlock_special() from attempting
to acquire any locks.
Or am I missing the point of your example?
On the other points, to the extent that I have analyzed them so far:
1. If the task is preempted after the --rcu_read_lock_nesting,
it won't see it as being in an RCU read-side critical section,
so won't queue it.
2. Of course, the task might have preempted earlier. In this
case, the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED is already set, so we will be
invoking rcu_read_unlock_special() anyway.
If an interrupt happens between the decrement and the call to
rcu_read_unlock_special(), then, yes, the irq handler will also
call rcu_read_unlock_special() if it calls rcu_read_unlock(), but
the check for in_irq() will prevent the irq handler's invocation
of rcu_read_unlock_special() from acquiring any locks.
3. It is possible that the task is preempted after the
--rcu_read_lock_nesting, in which case the task won't be queued.
Of course the task might already be queued if there was an
earlier preemption during this same RCU read-side critical
section, in which case #2 applies.
In other words, a preemption in __rcu_read_unlock() after the
--rcu_read_lock_nesting has no effect on RCU state: either the
task was already marked RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED, or it wasn't.
Either way, rcu_note_context_switch() does not see this task as
being in an RCU read-side critical section.
So what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
--
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