linux-kernel - Re: hotplug thread issues

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:	Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:39:48 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
	daniel@...ascale.com, yuyang.du@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: hotplug thread issues

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
> 
> So there have been some reports on hitting:
> 
>   BUG_ON(td->cpu != smp_processor_id());
> 
> in smpboot_thread_fn.
> 
> Now I've been staring at this for a wee bit today and I've found two
> issues, but I'm not sure either are enough to explain the observed.
> 
> 1) smpboot_register_percpu_thread() seems to lack serialization against
>    hotplug. It has a for_each_online() loop, but no get_online_cpus() --
>    unlike smpboot_unregister_percpu_thread, which does.
> 
>    Typical usage like spawn_ksoftirqd() should be fine, they're early
>    init calls and those run before we bring up the other CPUs. Therefore
>    this does not explain the observation that its ksoftirqd/n triggering
>    the BUG.
> 
>    However, the usage in proc_dowatchdog() is susceptible to this race
>    and its entirely possible to go wrong there.

Hmm. Need to have a look.
 
> 
> 2) the usage of __set_current_state(TASK_PARKED) in __kthread_parkme()
>    is wrong AFAICT, one should always use set_current_state() for
>    setting !TASK_RUNNING state. The comment with set_current_state()
>    explains why.
> 
>    This would've allowed the test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK) load to have
>    been satisfied before the store of TASK_PARKED.

My bad. Can you send a proper patch addressing that issue please? That
should be tagged stable as well I guess.

Thanks,

	tglx


--
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/