linux-kernel - Re: kmemleak: illegal RCU use assertion error

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: <20120405220704.GB3614@swordfish>
Date:	Fri, 6 Apr 2012 01:07:04 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kmemleak: illegal RCU use assertion error

On (04/05/12 14:47), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 12:30:06AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/03/12 07:58), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:10:43AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > On (04/02/12 06:09), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:09:11AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > commit e5601400081651060a59bd1f45f2821bb8e97f95
> > > > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > > > > > Date:   Sat Jan 7 11:03:57 2012 -0800
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     rcu: Simplify offline processing
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     Move ->qsmaskinit and blkd_tasks[] manipulation to the CPU_DYING
> > > > > >     notifier.  This simplifies the code by eliminating a potential
> > > > > >     deadlock and by reducing the responsibilities of force_quiescent_state().
> > > > > >     Also rename functions to make their connection to the CPU-hotplug
> > > > > >     stages explicit.
> > > > > >     
> > > > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> > > > > >     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > introduced WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())); to __call_rcu()
> > > > > > function, Paul also added cpu_offline checks to other routines (e.g. callbacks)
> > > > > > in later commits. It happens that kmemleak() triggers one of them.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > During cpu core offline, kfree()->kmemleak_free()->put_object()-->__call_rcu() chain
> > > > > > for struct intel_shared_regs * is executed when no struct users left on this core -- 
> > > > > > all CPUs are dead or dying.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [ 4703.342462] CPU 3 is now offline
> > > > > > [ 4705.588116] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > > > [ 4705.588129] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:1823 __call_rcu+0x9d/0x1d2()
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > [ 4705.588196] Call Trace:
> > > > > > [ 4705.588207]  [<ffffffff81059a00>] ? synchronize_srcu+0x6/0x17
> > > > > > [ 4705.588215]  [<ffffffff8103364e>] warn_slowpath_common+0x83/0x9c
> > > > > > [ 4705.588223]  [<ffffffff8111e627>] ? get_object+0x31/0x31
> > > > > > [ 4705.588229]  [<ffffffff81033681>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
> > > > > > [ 4705.588235]  [<ffffffff810af770>] __call_rcu+0x9d/0x1d2
> > > > > > [ 4705.588243]  [<ffffffff81013f52>] ? intel_pmu_cpu_dying+0x3b/0x5d
> > > > > > [ 4705.588249]  [<ffffffff810af8f1>] call_rcu_sched+0x17/0x19
> > > > > > [ 4705.588255]  [<ffffffff8111eb7e>] put_object+0x47/0x4b
> > > > > > [ 4705.588261]  [<ffffffff8111ed8b>] delete_object_full+0x2a/0x2e
> > > > > > [ 4705.588269]  [<ffffffff81491dc8>] kmemleak_free+0x26/0x45
> > > > > > [ 4705.588274]  [<ffffffff8111691f>] kfree+0x130/0x221
> > > > > > [ 4705.588280]  [<ffffffff81013f52>] intel_pmu_cpu_dying+0x3b/0x5d
> > > > > > [ 4705.588287]  [<ffffffff8149cb83>] x86_pmu_notifier+0xaf/0xb9
> > > > > > [ 4705.588296]  [<ffffffff814b0e9d>] notifier_call_chain+0xac/0xd9
> > > > > > [ 4705.588303]  [<ffffffff81059c9e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
> > > > > > [ 4705.588309]  [<ffffffff810354ec>] __cpu_notify+0x20/0x37
> > > > > > [ 4705.588314]  [<ffffffff81035516>] cpu_notify+0x13/0x15
> > > > > > [ 4705.588320]  [<ffffffff81490fab>] take_cpu_down+0x28/0x2e
> > > > > > [ 4705.588326]  [<ffffffff8109ef7f>] stop_machine_cpu_stop+0x96/0xf1
> > > > > > [ 4705.588332]  [<ffffffff8109ece3>] cpu_stopper_thread+0xe3/0x183
> > > > > > [ 4705.588338]  [<ffffffff8109eee9>] ? queue_stop_cpus_work+0xd0/0xd0
> > > > > > [ 4705.588344]  [<ffffffff814ad382>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x47/0x65
> > > > > > [ 4705.588353]  [<ffffffff81087d0d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x119/0x175
> > > > > > [ 4705.588358]  [<ffffffff81087d76>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
> > > > > > [ 4705.588364]  [<ffffffff8109ec00>] ? cpu_stop_signal_done+0x2c/0x2c
> > > > > > [ 4705.588370]  [<ffffffff810544a9>] kthread+0x8b/0x93
> > > > > > [ 4705.588378]  [<ffffffff814b5f34>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > > > > > [ 4705.588385]  [<ffffffff814ad7f0>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> > > > > > [ 4705.588391]  [<ffffffff8105441e>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5a/0x5a
> > > > > > [ 4705.588397]  [<ffffffff814b5f30>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
> > > > > > [ 4705.588400] ---[ end trace 720328982e35a713 ]---
> > > > > > [ 4705.588507] CPU 2 is now offline
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My first solution was to return from delete_object() if object deallocation
> > > > > > performed on cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()), marking object with special
> > > > > > flag, say OBJECT_ORPHAN. And issue real object_delete() during scan (for example)
> > > > > > when we see OBJECT_ORPHAN object.  
> > > > > > That, however, requires to handle special case when cpu core offlined
> > > > > > for small period of time, leading to object insertion error in
> > > > > > create_object(), which either may be handled in 2 possible ways (assuming
> > > > > > that lookup_object() returned OBJECT_ORPHAN):
> > > > > > #1 delete orphaned object and retry with insertion (*)
> > > > > > #2 re-set existing orphan object
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (*) performing delete_object() from within create_object() requires releasing
> > > > > > of held kmemleak and object locks, which is racy with other create_object() and
> > > > > > any possible scan() activities.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yet I'm not exactly sure that option #2 is the correct one.
> > > > > > (I've kind of a patch [not properly tested, etc.] for #2 option).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Alternatively, I can make RCU tolerate __call_rcu() from late in the
> > > > > CPU_DYING notifiers without too much trouble.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, if that will `do the trick', then I'm ready to test it.
> > > 
> > > If you are feeling lucky, please try out the attached untested patch.
> > > I will repost in the rather likely event that my testing finds bugs.
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > 
> > Hello Paul,
> > I'm running the kernel with your patch for a couple of days already and 
> > so far, so good.
> 
> No problems here as well.  Thank you for testing this -- I will add
> your Tested-by.
> 

Sure. Thanks for your help.

Tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>


	Sergey
--
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/