linux-kernel - Re: rcu warnings cause stack overflow

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: <20120204131333.GB13382@somewhere>
Date:	Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:13:35 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: rcu warnings cause stack overflow

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:33:35AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 10:32:14AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:11:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:52:20PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 01:27:42PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:14:48PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > > > Removing the WARN_ON_ONCE will fix this and, if lockdep is turned on, still
> > > > > > > will find illegal uses. But it won't work for lockdep off configs...
> > > > > > > So we probably want something better than the patch below.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ah ok. Hmm, but why are you using an exception to implement WARN_ON()
> > > > > > in s390? Is it to have a whole new stack for the warning path in order
> > > > > > to avoid stack overflow from the place that called the WARN_ON() ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The reason was to reduce the code footprint of the WARN_ON() and also
> > > > > be able to print the register contents at the time the warning happened.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah ok, makes sense.
> > > 
> > > So Frederic should push his anti-recursion patch, then?
> > 
> > Yes, please.
> > 
> > Tested-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > 
> > It still generates recursive warnings because the WARNON_ONCE is inlined and
> > every different usage will generate an exception, but it didn't produce a
> > stack overflow anymore.
> > To avoid the recursive warning the patch below would help. Not sure if it's
> > worth it...
> > 
> > Subject: [PATCH] rcu: move rcu_is_cpu_idle() check warning into C file
> > 
> > From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > 
> > rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() generate a warning if a cpu is in
> > extended quiescant state. Since these functions are inlined this can cause
> > a lot of warnings if in the processing of the WARN_ON_ONCE() there is
> > another usage of e.g. rcu_read_lock(). To make sure we only get one
> > warning (and avoid possible stack overflows) uninline the check.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/rcupdate.h |    9 +++++++--
> >  kernel/rcupdate.c        |    6 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index 81c04f4..9fe7be5 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -230,22 +230,27 @@ static inline void destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(struct rcu_head *head)
> > 
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU
> >  extern int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void);
> > +extern void rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(void);
> >  #else /* !CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
> >  static inline int rcu_is_cpu_idle(void)
> >  {
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > +
> > +static inline void rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle(void)
> > +{
> > +}
> >  #endif /* else !CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
> > 
> >  static inline void rcu_lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *map)
> >  {
> > -	WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
> > +	rcu_warn_if_is_cpu_idle();
> 
> Thank you for the patch, but this WARN_ON_ONCE() has now been removed
> in favor of lockdep-RCU checks elsewhere.  This has the advantage of
> leveraging lockdep's splat-once and anti-recursion facilities.
> 
> So I believe that current -rcu covers this.  (And yes, I do need to
> push my most recent changes out.)

This still uncovers cases where we call rcu_read_lock() without matching
rcu_dereference(). Amongst this we have rcu_dereference_raw(), conditional
rcu_dereference() and may be cases where we simply have no rcu_dereference*
but we use rcu_read_lock() alone for some reason...
--
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/