linux-kernel - Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop

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: <506BF339.6020201@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:41:37 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
CC:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier()
 dependency on __stop_machine()")

On 10/03/2012 01:13 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> 
>>>>> 	CPU 0				CPU 1
>>>>> 	kmem_cache_destroy()
>>>>
>>>> What about the get_online_cpus() right here at CPU0 before
>>>> calling mutex_lock(slab_mutex)? How can the cpu_up() proceed
>>>> on CPU1?? I still don't get it... :(
>>>>
>>>> (kmem_cache_destroy() uses get/put_online_cpus() around acquiring
>>>> and releasing slab_mutex).
>>>
>>> The problem is that there is a CPU-hotplug notifier for slab, which
>>> establishes hotplug->slab.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>  Then having kmem_cache_destroy() call
>>> rcu_barrier() under the lock
>>
>> Ah, that's where I disagree. kmem_cache_destroy() *cannot* proceed at
>> this point in time, because it has invoked get_online_cpus()! It simply
>> cannot be running past that point in the presence of a running hotplug
>> notifier! So, kmem_cache_destroy() should have been sleeping on the
>> hotplug lock, waiting for the notifier to release it, no?
> 
> Please look carefully at the scenario again. kmem_cache_destroy() calls 
> get_online_cpus() before the hotplug notifier even starts. Hence it has no 
> reason to block there (noone is holding hotplug lock).
> 

Agreed.

> *Then* hotplug notifier fires up, succeeds obtaining hotplug lock, 

Ah, that's the problem! The hotplug reader-writer synchronization is not just
via a simple mutex. Its a refcount underneath. If kmem_cache_destroy() incremented
the refcount, the hotplug-writer (cpu_up) will release the hotplug lock immediately
and try again. IOW, a hotplug-reader (kmem_cache_destroy()) and a hotplug-writer
(cpu_up) can *NEVER* run concurrently. If they do, we are totally screwed!


Take a look at the hotplug lock acquire function at the writer side:

static void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
{
        cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;

        for (;;) {
                mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
                if (likely(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))   <================ This one!
                        break;
                __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
                mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
                schedule();
        }   
}

> kmem_cache_destroy() calls rcu_barrier in the meantime, and blocks itself 
> on the hotplug lock there.
> 
> Please note that the get_online_cpus() call in kmem_cache_destroy() 
> doesn't play *any* role in this scenario.
> 

Please consider my thoughts above. You'll see why I'm not convinced.


Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/