linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cpu hotplug: rework cpu_hotplug locking (was [LOCKDEP] cpufreq: possible circular locking dependency detected)

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]

Date:	Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:35:39 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpu hotplug: rework cpu_hotplug locking (was
 [LOCKDEP] cpufreq: possible circular locking dependency detected)

On (06/28/13 19:43), Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 01:14 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Yes, this helps, of course, but at the same time it returns the previous
> > problem -- preventing cpu_hotplug in some places.
> > 
> > 
> > I have a bit different (perhaps naive) RFC patch and would like to hear
> > comments.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The idead is to brake existing lock dependency chain by not holding
> > cpu_hotplug lock mutex across the calls. In order to detect active
> > refcount readers or active writer, refcount now may have the following
> > values:
> > 
> > -1: active writer -- only one writer may be active, readers are blocked
> >  0: no readers/writer
> >> 0: active readers -- many readers may be active, writer is blocked
> > 
> > "blocked" reader or writer goes to wait_queue. as soon as writer finishes
> > (refcount becomes 0), it wakeups all existing processes in a wait_queue.
> > reader perform wakeup call only when it sees that pending writer is present
> > (active_writer is not NULL).
> > 
> > cpu_hotplug lock now only required to protect refcount cmp, inc, dec
> > operations so it can be changed to spinlock.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, now that I actually looked at your patch, I see that it is completely
> wrong! I'm sure you intended to fix the *bug*, but instead you ended
> up merely silencing the *warning* (and also left lockdep blind), leaving
> the actual bug as it is!
>

Thank you for your time and review.


> So let me summarize what the actual bug is and what is it that actually
> needs fixing:
> 
> Basically you have 2 things -
> 1. A worker item (cs_dbs_timer in this case) that can re-arm itself
>    using gov_queue_work(). And gov_queue_work() uses get/put_online_cpus().
> 
> 2. In the cpu_down() path, you want to cancel the worker item and destroy
>    and cleanup its resources (the timer_mutex).
> 
> So the problem is that you can deadlock like this:
> 
>     CPU 3                                  CPU 4
> 
>    cpu_down()
>    -> acquire hotplug.lock
> 
> 				      cs_dbs_timer()
> 				        -> get_online_cpus()
> 					   //wait on hotplug.lock
> 
> 
>    try to cancel cs_dbs_timer()
>    synchronously.
> 
> That leads to a deadlock, because, cs_dbs_timer() is waiting to
> get the hotplug lock which CPU 3 is holding, whereas CPU 3 is
> waiting for cs_dbs_timer() to finish. So they can end up mutually
> waiting for each other, forever. (Yeah, the lockdep splat might have
> been a bit cryptic to decode this, but here it is).
> 
> So to fix the *bug*, you need to avoid waiting synchronously while
> holding the hotplug lock. Possibly by using cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> under CPU_POST_DEAD or something like that. That would remove the deadlock
> possibility.

will take a look. Thank you!

	-ss

> Your patch, on the other hand, doesn't remove the deadlock possibility:
> just because you don't hold the lock throughout the hotplug operation
> doesn't mean that the task calling get_online_cpus() can sneak in and
> finish its work in-between a hotplug operation (because the refcount
> won't allow it to). Also, it should *not* be allowed to sneak in like
> that, since that constitutes *racing* with CPU hotplug, which it was
> meant to avoid!.
> 
> Also, as a side effect of not holding the lock throughout the hotplug
> operation, lockdep goes blind, and doesn't complain, even though the
> actual bug is still there! Effectively, this is nothing but papering
> over the bug and silencing the warning, which we should never do.
> 
> So, please, fix the _cpufreq_ code to resolve the deadlock.
> 
> 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/