| 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: <20110715155916.GB2327@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:59:16 -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 05:04:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 07:36 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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().
>
> Yeah, *cheer* for gcc being a smarty-pants.
>
> > > > > > 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?
>
> yep
OK...
> > In which case, why didn't the in_irq() check kick us out before we
> > had a chance to attempt to acquire any locks?
>
> Because we're in irq_exit(), after decrementing preempt_count, so
> in_irq() returns false.
Can we delay decrementing preempt_count so that RCU has some chance
of actually working?
> > > > > > 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! ;-)
>
> Nope, it simply makes the invoke_softirq() call in irq_exit() do an
> unconditional wakeup of ksoftirqd/# since there isn't an irq-tail to
> speak of.
That would be a bad thing for rcu_read_unlock_special() to call from
within a hardware irq handler. :-/
> > > > > 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?
>
> No, the *BANG* being that we end up calling rcu_read_unlock_special()
> while holding scheduler locks, which is BAD(tm).
Well, it certainly is BAD(tm) if you guys continue to deprive
rcu_read_unlock_special() of the means of determining whether it is
being invoked from hardware irq handler context.
> > (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.
>
> Right, so in_irq() simply checks a few bits in preempt_count, which we
> just cleared due to being in irq_exit().
Right. So how about delaying clearing those bits until after you get
done messing with the scheduler from hardware irq handler context?
> > Or am I missing the point of your example?
>
> You were ;-)
>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right, but
>
> > 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.
>
> But in_irq() isn't sufficient for RCU usage after the hardirq ends, see
> irq_exit(). Also there's all of softirq to consider, that too can run
> and not get caught by in_irq().
Change the rules without adjusting the callers can in fact result in some
breakage. ;-)
The bit about local_irq_save() and local_irq_restore() invoking the
scheduler is rather surprising -- is there a raw_ version that avoids
this?
> > 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?
>
> $task IRQ SoftIRQ
>
> rcu_read_lock()
>
> /* do stuff */
>
> <preempt> |= UNLOCK_BLOCKED
>
> rcu_read_unlock()
> --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
>
> irq_enter();
> /* do stuff, don't use RCU */
> irq_exit();
> sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET);
> invoke_softirq()
Why can't we exchange the order of the above two so that RCU correctly
avoids messing with the scheduler if called from hardware interrupt
context?
>
> ttwu();
> spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock)
> rcu_read_lock();
> /* do stuff */
> rcu_read_unlock();
> rcu_read_unlock_special()
> rcu_report_exp_rnp()
> ttwu()
> spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock) /* deadlock */
>
>
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
>
> Ed can simply trigger this 'easy' because invoke_softirq() immediately
> does a ttwu() of ksoftirqd/# instead of doing the in-place softirq stuff
> first, but even without that the above happens.
An easily reproduced bug is certainly a nice change of pace...
> Something like the below _might_ fix it..
Maybe, but how does tglx make PREEMPT_RT work in this case? The problem
is that PREEMPT_RT allows ksoftirqd to be preempted, and thus allows it
to be RCU priority boosted.
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> kernel/softirq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> index 14dc7dd..373c9c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> }
>
> /* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
> - if (in_irq()) {
> + if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> return;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> index 40cf63d..fca82c3 100644
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> @@ -315,16 +315,24 @@ static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
> {
> if (!force_irqthreads)
> __do_softirq();
> - else
> + else {
> + __local_bh_disable((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0),
> + SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> wakeup_softirqd();
> + __local_bh_enable(SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> + }
> }
> #else
> static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
> {
> if (!force_irqthreads)
> do_softirq();
> - else
> + else {
> + __local_bh_disable((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0),
> + SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> wakeup_softirqd();
> + __local_bh_enable(SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> + }
> }
> #endif
>
>
--
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