linux-kernel - Re: Another preempt folding issue?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140213182522.GB14089@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:25:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	MASAO TAKAHASHI <masao-takahashi@...no.co.jp>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: Another preempt folding issue?

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:00:19PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 12.02.2014 12:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:09:29PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
> >> Something else here I run a kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT not set and NR_CPUS
> >> limited to 8 (for the 32bit kernel). So the default apic driver is used. Since
> >> default_send_IPI_mask_logical is only used from there, I assume the trace you
> >> got does the same. Maybe something there is wrong which would explain why we
> >> only see it on 32bit hosts.
> > 
> > Can you try with a different APIC driver to test this?
> > 
> I don't think I can. And I think the statement about this only be used for 32bit
> could be wrong. I got mislead to think so because those are only defined in
> probe_32 but the 64bit counterpart isn't containing much aside that.
> 
> Anyway, I played around with tracing a bit more. So with this change:
> 
>                 if (need_resched()) {
>                         srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>                         if (need_resched() != should_resched()) {
> +                               trace_printk("need(%i) != should(%i)\n",
> +                                       need_resched(), should_resched());
> +                               trace_printk("exit_reason=%u\n",
> +                                       vcpu->run->exit_reason);
> +                                trace_printk("preempt_count=%lx\n",
> +                                        __this_cpu_read_4(__preempt_count));
> +                                tracing_stop();
> +                                printk(KERN_ERR "Stopped tracing, due to
> inconsistent state.\n");
>                         }
>  +                      schedule();
>  -                      cond_reschedule();
>                         vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>                 }
> 
> I get the following (weird) output:
> 
>             Xorg-1078  [001] d...    71.270251: native_smp_send_reschedule
> <-resched_task
>             Xorg-1078  [001] d...    71.270251: default_send_IPI_mask_logical
> <-native_smp_send_reschedule
>       bamfdaemon-2318  [001] d...    71.270465: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>       bamfdaemon-2318  [001] d...    71.270539: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270689: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270827: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>           compiz-2365  [001] d...    71.270940: resched_task <-check_preempt_wakeup
>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] dn..    71.270999: smp_reschedule_interrupt
> <-reschedule_interrupt
>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] dn..    71.270999: scheduler_ipi
> <-smp_reschedule_interrupt
>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271001: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run: need(1)
> != should(0)
>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271002: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run:
> exit_reason=2
>  qemu-system-x86-2679  [000] .N..    71.271003: kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run:
> preempt_count=0
> 
> So am I reading this right, that the interrupt did get delivered to cpu#0 while
> the thread info already had the resched flag set. So this really should have
> cleared the bit in preempt_count. But while the trace info shows 'N' for some
> reason should_reschedule returns false but at the same time reading the preempt
> count manually shows it 0?

So the assembly merges the first and second should_resched(), so its
possible that load got before the interrupt().

The 3rd preempt_count load gets re-issued and so that would show the
'true' value again.

If you want to force a reload after the condition; put in a barrier().

In any case; this looks like a false-positive. Please try again until
you get one where the interrupt doesn't happen and we stay in 'n' state.

--
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/