linux-kernel - [PATCH] workqueue: allow work_on

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: <20130724162542.GE20377@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:25:42 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Alex Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: allow work_on_cpu() to be called recursively

Applied to wq/for-3.11-fixes with comment and subject tweaks.

Thanks!

---------- 8< ------------

>From c2fda509667b0fda4372a237f5a59ea4570b1627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:31:42 +0800

If the @fn call work_on_cpu() again, the lockdep will complain:

> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 3.11.0-rc1-lockdep-fix-a #6 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------------------
> kworker/0:1/142 is trying to acquire lock:
>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81077100>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dd9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock((&wfc.work));
>   lock((&wfc.work));
>
>  *** DEADLOCK ***

It is false-positive lockdep report. In this sutiation,
the two "wfc"s of the two work_on_cpu() are different,
they are both on stack. flush_work() can't be deadlock.

To fix this, we need to avoid the lockdep checking in this case,
thus we instroduce a internal __flush_work() which skip the lockdep.

tj: Minor comment adjustment.

Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Reported-by: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reported-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index f02c4a4..55f5f0a 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -2817,6 +2817,19 @@ already_gone:
 	return false;
 }
 
+static bool __flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct wq_barrier barr;
+
+	if (start_flush_work(work, &barr)) {
+		wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
+		destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
+		return true;
+	} else {
+		return false;
+	}
+}
+
 /**
  * flush_work - wait for a work to finish executing the last queueing instance
  * @work: the work to flush
@@ -2830,18 +2843,10 @@ already_gone:
  */
 bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
 {
-	struct wq_barrier barr;
-
 	lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map);
 	lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map);
 
-	if (start_flush_work(work, &barr)) {
-		wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
-		destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
-		return true;
-	} else {
-		return false;
-	}
+	return __flush_work(work);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(flush_work);
 
@@ -4756,7 +4761,14 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
 
 	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
 	schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
-	flush_work(&wfc.work);
+
+	/*
+	 * The work item is on-stack and can't lead to deadlock through
+	 * flushing.  Use __flush_work() to avoid spurious lockdep warnings
+	 * when work_on_cpu()s are nested.
+	 */
+	__flush_work(&wfc.work);
+
 	return wfc.ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
-- 
1.8.3.1

--
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/