| 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: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:57:59 -0700
From: bsegall@...gle.com
To: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, pjt@...gle.com,
chris.j.arges@...onical.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() causes rq->lock deadlock
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru> writes:
> At Thu, 15 May 2014 10:43:14 -0700,
> bsegall@...gle.com wrote:
>>
>> Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru> writes:
>>
>> > tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() sets cfs_b->timer_active to 0 to
>> > force the period timer restart. It's not safe, because
>> > can lead to deadlock, described in commit 927b54fccbf0:
>> > "__start_cfs_bandwidth calls hrtimer_cancel while holding rq->lock,
>> > waiting for the hrtimer to finish. However, if sched_cfs_period_timer
>> > runs for another loop iteration, the hrtimer can attempt to take
>> > rq->lock, resulting in deadlock."
>> > If tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() resets cfs_b->timer_active concurrently
>> > to the second iteration of sched_cfs_period_timer, deadlock occurs.
>>
>> I do not see this deadlock. cfs_b->timer_active is protected by
>> cfs_b->lock on both read and write, and I don't think it would even
>> directly cause deadlock if it wasn't. In particular this patch makes us
>> run for strictly longer outside of the interrupt (although I think the
>> patched version is also correct). The old issue was calling
>> hrtimer_cancel, which would mean we hold cfs_b->lock while waiting for
>> the interrupt to complete, while the interrupt was waiting to take
>> cfs_b->lock.
>
> I still think, there is a deadlock. I'll try to explain.
> Three CPUs must be involved:
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> take rq->lock period timer fired
> ... take cfs_b lock
> ... ... tg_set_cfs_bandwidth()
> throttle_cfs_rq() release cfs_b lock take cfs_b lock
> ... distribute_cfs_runtime() timer_active = 0
> take cfs_b->lock wait for rq->lock ...
> __start_cfs_bandwidth()
> {wait for timer callback
> break if timer_active == 1}
>
> So, CPU0 and CPU1 are deadlocked.
Ahhh, yes, there is a three-cpu race here. Could you clarify the commit
message that this is a race involving all three of tg_set_cfs_bandwidth,
period timer, and then a second __start_cfs_bandwidth call?
The code looks good however.
>> I just did notice however that sched_cfs_period_timer reads
>> cfs_b->period without any locks, which can in fact race with an update
>> to period (and isn't fixed by this patch). If this write doesn't happen
>> to be atomic (which is certainly not guaranteed, and is entirely
>> plausible on say 32-bit x86, much less other archs), we could read a
>> partially written value and move the timer incorrectly. Pulling the
>> lock/unlock out of do_sched_cfs_period_timer should fix this easily
>> enough.
>
> Looks like an another issue.
Yeah.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman
>
>>
>> unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs could cause similar issues with its unlocked
>> read of quota, and can also be easily fixed.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Instead of resetting cfs_b->timer_active, tg_set_cfs_bandwidth can
>> > wait for period timer callbacks (ignoring cfs_b->timer_active) and
>> > restart the timer explicitly.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
>> > Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
>> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> > Cc: pjt@...gle.com
>> > Cc: Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>
>> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> > ---
>> > kernel/sched/core.c | 3 +--
>> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 ++++----
>> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 2 +-
>> > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > index d9d8ece..e9b9c66 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > @@ -7717,8 +7717,7 @@ static int tg_set_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg, u64 period, u64 quota)
>> > /* restart the period timer (if active) to handle new period expiry */
>> > if (runtime_enabled && cfs_b->timer_active) {
>> > /* force a reprogram */
>> > - cfs_b->timer_active = 0;
>> > - __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b);
>> > + __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b, true);
>> > }
>> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&cfs_b->lock);
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 7570dd9..55a0a5b 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > @@ -3129,7 +3129,7 @@ static int assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>> > */
>> > if (!cfs_b->timer_active) {
>> > __refill_cfs_bandwidth_runtime(cfs_b);
>> > - __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b);
>> > + __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b, false);
>> > }
>> >
>> > if (cfs_b->runtime > 0) {
>> > @@ -3308,7 +3308,7 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>> > raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> > list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->throttled_list, &cfs_b->throttled_cfs_rq);
>> > if (!cfs_b->timer_active)
>> > - __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b);
>> > + __start_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_b, false);
>> > raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -3690,7 +3690,7 @@ static void init_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>> > }
>> >
>> > /* requires cfs_b->lock, may release to reprogram timer */
>> > -void __start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
>> > +void __start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, bool force)
>> > {
>> > /*
>> > * The timer may be active because we're trying to set a new bandwidth
>> > @@ -3705,7 +3705,7 @@ void __start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b)
>> > cpu_relax();
>> > raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> > /* if someone else restarted the timer then we're done */
>> > - if (cfs_b->timer_active)
>> > + if (!force && cfs_b->timer_active)
>> > return;
>> > }
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > index 456e492..369b4d6 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
>> > @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ extern void init_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b);
>> > extern int sched_group_set_shares(struct task_group *tg, unsigned long shares);
>> >
>> > extern void __refill_cfs_bandwidth_runtime(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b);
>> > -extern void __start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b);
>> > +extern void __start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, bool force);
>> > extern void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
>> >
>> > extern void free_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg);
--
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