| 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: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:24:59 +0200
From: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rob@...dley.net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, luto@....edu,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, avi@...hat.com, imammedo@...hat.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, johnstul@...ibm.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] Take in account that several cpus might call check_tsc_sync_* at the same time
conditions:
multiliple cpus guest on over-commited host running aggressive
cpu online/offline script.
real use-case:
cpu hotplug in virt environment
Guest may hung with following trace:
---- cut ----
[ 54.234569] CPU3: Stuck ??
./offV2.sh: line 11: echo: write error: Input/output error
[ 54.250408] CPU 1 is now offline
[ 54.260887] CPU 2 is now offline
[ 54.261350] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
./offV2.sh: line 8: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
[ 54.286857] SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code
[ 54.299540] Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x1
[ 54.250401] Disabled fast string operations
[ 54.591023] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 54.591023] WARNING: at kernel/watchdog.c:241 watchdog_overflow_callback+0x98/0xc0()
[ 54.591023] Hardware name: KVM
[ 54.591023] Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
[ 54.591023] Modules linked in: sunrpc nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables binfmt_misc crc32c_intel ghash_clmulni_intel microcode serio_raw virtio_balloon e1000 i2c_piix4 i2c_core floppy [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan]
[ 54.591023] Pid: 1193, comm: offV2.sh Not tainted 3.4.0-rc4+ #203
[ 54.591023] Call Trace:
[ 54.591023] <NMI> [<ffffffff810566df>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff810567d6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff810dddf8>] watchdog_overflow_callback+0x98/0xc0
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff8111685c>] __perf_event_overflow+0x9c/0x220
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81023c18>] ? x86_perf_event_set_period+0xd8/0x160
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81116e14>] perf_event_overflow+0x14/0x20
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81029405>] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x1a5/0x310
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff815436e1>] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x21/0x30
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81542f52>] do_nmi+0x132/0x3d0
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff815424bc>] end_repeat_nmi+0x1a/0x1e
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81053adf>] ? __cleanup_sighand+0x2f/0x40
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81539b27>] ? check_tsc_sync_source+0x5c/0x14a
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81539b27>] ? check_tsc_sync_source+0x5c/0x14a
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81539b27>] ? check_tsc_sync_source+0x5c/0x14a
[ 54.591023] <<EOE>> [<ffffffff81539274>] native_cpu_up+0x156/0x181
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff8153ad8c>] _cpu_up+0x9c/0x10e
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff8153ae4a>] cpu_up+0x4c/0x5c
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff8152cd1c>] store_online+0x9c/0xd0
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff8136d210>] dev_attr_store+0x20/0x30
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff811e819f>] sysfs_write_file+0xef/0x170
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81179618>] vfs_write+0xc8/0x190
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff811797e1>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
[ 54.591023] [<ffffffff81549c29>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 54.591023] ---[ end trace d5170b988db7c86f ]---
---- cut ----
this happens when boot cpu0 give-ups on waiting for cpu3 due to cpu3 not
setting cpu_callin_mask in specified timeout. And then cpu1 is being brought
online.
1. In this case cpu3 already incremented start_count => 1 and waiting at:
while (atomic_read(&start_count) != cpus) /// local const int cpus = 2
2. then cpu1 arrives, increments start_count => 2 and cpu[1,3] continue
to boot as if everything ok.
3. then cpu0 arrives to check_tsc_sync_source and lock-ups on
while (atomic_read(&start_count) != cpus-1) // start_count is 2
Fix race by making boot cpu lead rendezvous process and forcing failed
cpu to return early from check_tsc_sync_target not doing clock sync.
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
index fc25e60..5f06138 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
@@ -25,8 +25,8 @@
* Entry/exit counters that make sure that both CPUs
* run the measurement code at once:
*/
-static __cpuinitdata atomic_t start_count;
-static __cpuinitdata atomic_t stop_count;
+static __cpuinitdata atomic_t start_tsc_sync;
+static __cpuinitdata atomic_t stop_tsc_sync;
/*
* We use a raw spinlock in this exceptional case, because
@@ -123,8 +123,6 @@ static inline unsigned int loop_timeout(int cpu)
*/
void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
{
- int cpus = 2;
-
/*
* No need to check if we already know that the TSC is not
* synchronized:
@@ -140,23 +138,19 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
}
/*
- * Reset it - in case this is a second bootup:
+ * Sygnal AP[s] that source cpu is arrived
*/
- atomic_set(&stop_count, 0);
+ atomic_set(&start_tsc_sync, 1);
/*
* Wait for the target to arrive:
*/
- while (atomic_read(&start_count) != cpus-1)
+ while (atomic_read(&start_tsc_sync))
cpu_relax();
- /*
- * Trigger the target to continue into the measurement too:
- */
- atomic_inc(&start_count);
check_tsc_warp(loop_timeout(cpu));
- while (atomic_read(&stop_count) != cpus-1)
+ while (!atomic_read(&stop_tsc_sync))
cpu_relax();
if (nr_warps) {
@@ -173,7 +167,6 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
/*
* Reset it - just in case we boot another CPU later:
*/
- atomic_set(&start_count, 0);
nr_warps = 0;
max_warp = 0;
last_tsc = 0;
@@ -181,7 +174,7 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
/*
* Let the target continue with the bootup:
*/
- atomic_inc(&stop_count);
+ atomic_set(&stop_tsc_sync, 0);
}
/*
@@ -189,29 +182,30 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
*/
void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_target(void)
{
- int cpus = 2;
-
if (unsynchronized_tsc() || tsc_clocksource_reliable)
return;
/*
- * Register this CPU's participation and wait for the
- * source CPU to start the measurement:
+ * Wait for the source CPU to start the measurement
*/
- atomic_inc(&start_count);
- while (atomic_read(&start_count) != cpus)
+ while (!atomic_read(&start_tsc_sync))
cpu_relax();
+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), cpu_initialized_mask))
+ return;
+
+ atomic_set(&start_tsc_sync, 0);
+
check_tsc_warp(loop_timeout(smp_processor_id()));
/*
* Ok, we are done:
*/
- atomic_inc(&stop_count);
+ atomic_set(&stop_tsc_sync, 1);
/*
* Wait for the source CPU to print stuff:
*/
- while (atomic_read(&stop_count) != cpus)
+ while (atomic_read(&stop_tsc_sync))
cpu_relax();
}
--
1.7.1
--
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