linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited grace periods

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: <20140903113112.GM4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:31:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
	<""@rjwysocki.net>, tianyu.lan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Eliminate deadlock between CPU hotplug
 and expedited grace periods

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:36:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:17:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 09:05:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > URGH.. I really hate that. The hotplug interface is already too
> > > > horrible, we should not add such hacks to it.
> > > 
> > > We do have try_ interfaces to a number of other subsystems, so I don't
> > > believe that it qualifies as such a hack.
> > 
> > We do indeed, but I'm not sure about adding this to the hotplug stuff.
> 
> Looks pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> > Also; not really understanding the problem doesn't help. 
> 
> The current implementation of synchronize_sched_expedited()
> calls get_online_cpus().  Some of the ACPI code needs to hold the
> acpi_ioremap_lock mutex across synchronize_sched_expedited(), and
> also needs to acquire this same mutex from a CPU hotplug notifier.
> This results in deadlock between the cpu_hotplug.lock mutex and the
> acpi_ioremap_lock mutex.


  acpi_ioremap_lock			cpu_hotplug_begin()
    synchronize_sched()			  acpi_ioremap_lock
      get_online_cpus()

So yes, AB-BA.

> Normal RCU grace periods avoid this by synchronizing on a lock acquired by
> the RCU CPU-hotplug notifiers, but this does not work for the expedited
> grace periods because the outgoing CPU can be running random tasks for
> quite some time after RCU's notifier executes.  So the fix is just to
> drop back to a normal grace period when there is a CPU-hotplug operation
> in progress.

So why are we 'normally' doing an expedited call here anyhow? 

> > > > How about ripping that rcu_expedited stuff out instead? That's all
> > > > conditional anyhow, so might as well not do it.
> > > 
> > > In what way is the expedited stuff conditional?
> > 
> > synchronize_sched() conditionally calls synchronize_sched_expedited()
> > and its condition: rcu_expedited, gets set/cleared on pm notifiers and
> > nr_cpu_ids.
> 
> There are also direct calls to both synchronize_sched_expedited() and
> synchronize_rcu_expedited().

But those are not within hotplug bits. Also weren't we removing them? I
thought we didn't appreciate spraying IPIs like they do?
--
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/