| 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, 3 Oct 2012 09:00:45 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [RFC] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in
kmem_cache_destroy()
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:25:28PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 08:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 05:52:26PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> On 10/03/2012 03:16 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good question. I believe it should be safe to drop slab_mutex earlier, as
> >>>> cachep has already been unlinked. I am adding slab people and linux-mm to
> >>>> CC (the whole thread on LKML can be found at
> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/296 for reference).
> >>>>
> >>>> How about the patch below? Pekka, Christoph, please?
> >>>
> >>> It turns out that lockdep is actually getting this wrong, so the changelog
> >>> in the previous version wasn't accurate.
> >>>
> >>> Please find patch with updated changelog below. Pekka, Christoph, could
> >>> you please check whether it makes sense to you as well? Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy()
> >>>
> >>> Commit 1331e7a1bbe1 ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on
> >>> __stop_machine()") introduced slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock
> >>> dependency through kmem_cache_destroy() -> rcu_barrier() ->
> >>> _rcu_barrier() -> get_online_cpus().
> >>>
> >>> Lockdep thinks that this might actually result in ABBA deadlock,
> >>> and reports it as below:
> >>>
> >>> === [ cut here ] ===
> >>> ======================================================
> >>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >>> 3.6.0-rc5-00004-g0d8ee37 #143 Not tainted
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> kworker/u:2/40 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>> (rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2126>] _rcu_barrier+0x26/0x1e0
> >>>
> >>> but task is already holding lock:
> >>> (slab_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81176e15>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x45/0xe0
> >>>
> >>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >>>
> >>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >>>
> >>> -> #2 (slab_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
> >>> [<ffffffff81558cb5>] cpuup_callback+0x2f/0xbe
> >>> [<ffffffff81564b83>] notifier_call_chain+0x93/0x140
> >>> [<ffffffff81076f89>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0x10
> >>> [<ffffffff8155719d>] _cpu_up+0xba/0x14e
> >>> [<ffffffff815572ed>] cpu_up+0xbc/0x117
> >>> [<ffffffff81ae05e3>] smp_init+0x6b/0x9f
> >>> [<ffffffff81ac47d6>] kernel_init+0x147/0x1dc
> >>> [<ffffffff8156ab44>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> >>>
> >>> -> #1 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
> >>> [<ffffffff81049197>] get_online_cpus+0x37/0x50
> >>> [<ffffffff810f21bb>] _rcu_barrier+0xbb/0x1e0
> >>> [<ffffffff810f22f0>] rcu_barrier_sched+0x10/0x20
> >>> [<ffffffff810f2309>] rcu_barrier+0x9/0x10
> >>> [<ffffffff8118c129>] deactivate_locked_super+0x49/0x90
> >>> [<ffffffff8118cc01>] deactivate_super+0x61/0x70
> >>> [<ffffffff811aaaa7>] mntput_no_expire+0x127/0x180
> >>> [<ffffffff811ab49e>] sys_umount+0x6e/0xd0
> >>> [<ffffffff81569979>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>>
> >>> -> #0 (rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex){+.+...}:
> >>> [<ffffffff810adb4e>] check_prev_add+0x3de/0x440
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530
> >>> [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450
> >>> [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
> >>> [<ffffffff810f2126>] _rcu_barrier+0x26/0x1e0
> >>> [<ffffffff810f22f0>] rcu_barrier_sched+0x10/0x20
> >>> [<ffffffff810f2309>] rcu_barrier+0x9/0x10
> >>> [<ffffffff81176ea1>] kmem_cache_destroy+0xd1/0xe0
> >>> [<ffffffffa04c3154>] nf_conntrack_cleanup_net+0xe4/0x110 [nf_conntrack]
> >>> [<ffffffffa04c31aa>] nf_conntrack_cleanup+0x2a/0x70 [nf_conntrack]
> >>> [<ffffffffa04c42ce>] nf_conntrack_net_exit+0x5e/0x80 [nf_conntrack]
> >>> [<ffffffff81454b79>] ops_exit_list+0x39/0x60
> >>> [<ffffffff814551ab>] cleanup_net+0xfb/0x1b0
> >>> [<ffffffff8106917b>] process_one_work+0x26b/0x4c0
> >>> [<ffffffff81069f3e>] worker_thread+0x12e/0x320
> >>> [<ffffffff8106f73e>] kthread+0x9e/0xb0
> >>> [<ffffffff8156ab44>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> >>>
> >>> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>>
> >>> Chain exists of:
> >>> rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex --> cpu_hotplug.lock --> slab_mutex
> >>>
> >>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>> ---- ----
> >>> lock(slab_mutex);
> >>> lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
> >>> lock(slab_mutex);
> >>> lock(rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex);
> >>>
> >>> *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>> === [ cut here ] ===
> >>>
> >>> This is actually a false positive. Lockdep has no way of knowing the fact
> >>> that the ABBA can actually never happen, because of special semantics of
> >>> cpu_hotplug.refcount and itss handling in cpu_hotplug_begin(); the mutual
> >>> exclusion there is not achieved through mutex, but through
> >>> cpu_hotplug.refcount.
> >>>
> >>> The "neither cpu_up() nor cpu_down() will proceed past cpu_hotplug_begin()
> >>> until everyone who called get_online_cpus() will call put_online_cpus()"
> >>> semantics is totally invisible to lockdep.
> >>>
> >>> This patch therefore moves the unlock of slab_mutex so that rcu_barrier()
> >>> is being called with it unlocked. It has two advantages:
> >>>
> >>> - it slightly reduces hold time of slab_mutex; as it's used to protect
> >>> the cachep list, it's not necessary to hold it over __kmem_cache_destroy()
> >>> call any more
> >>> - it silences the lockdep false positive warning, as it avoids lockdep ever
> >>> learning about slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock dependency
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> Earlier I was under the wrong impression that all the calltraces that lockdep
> >> spewed were reflecting the same point in time. So, sorry about that noise! :-)
> >> It is indeed a false-positive and there is no real bug here, and the fix looks
> >> good, provided __kmem_cache_destroy() doesn't expect slab_mutex to be held.
> >
> > I am not so sure about it being a false positive. Consider the following
> > sequence of events:
> >
> > o Thread A starts a CPU-hotplug operation, acquiring the
> > hotplug mutex.
> >
> > o Thread B does a kmem_cache_destroy(), acquiring the slab mutex.
>
> This can't happen. Because kmem_cache_destroy() will call get_online_cpus() before
> trying to acquire slab mutex. And it sleeps waiting at get_online_cpus() because
> the hotplug lock has already been acquired by Thread A.
Good point!!! False positive it is!
Thanx, Paul
> > o Thread A reaches the slab CPU-hotplug notifier, but cannot acquire
> > the slab mutex because Thread B hold it.
> >
> > o Thread B enters rcu_barrier(), but cannot acquire the hotplug
> > mutex because Thread A holds it.
> >
> > So I would argue that lockdep's output was a bit confusing, but that
> > the deadlock it flagged is real. Or am I still missing something?
> >
>
> So the key point is, Thread A is a hotplug writer. Thread B becomes a hotplug reader
> the moment it calls get_online_cpus(). So they can't co-exist/run together. They will
> get serialized. That is, Thread A runs to completion, releases hotplug lock. Only then
> thread B gets past get_online_cpus().
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
> >> But, I'm also quite surprised that the put_online_cpus() code as it stands today
> >> doesn't have any checks for the refcount going negative. I believe that such a
> >> check would be valuable to help catch cases where we might end up inadvertently
> >> causing an imbalance between get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus(). I'll post
> >> that as a separate patch.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>> mm/slab.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> >>> index 1133911..693c7cb 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/slab.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> >>> @@ -2801,12 +2801,12 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache *cachep)
> >>> put_online_cpus();
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>> + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> >>>
> >>> if (unlikely(cachep->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU))
> >>> rcu_barrier();
> >>>
> >>> __kmem_cache_destroy(cachep);
> >>> - mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex);
> >>> put_online_cpus();
> >>> }
> >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_destroy);
> >>>
> >>
>
--
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