| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20141210142619.790e3b38@thinkpad-w530>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:26:19 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, jkosina@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some
cases - deadlock
> Commit b2c4623dcd07 ("rcu: More on deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited
> grace periods") introduced another problem that can easily be reproduced by
> starting/stopping cpus in a loop.
>
> E.g.:
> for i in `seq 5000`; do
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> done
>
> Will result in:
> INFO: task /cpu_start_stop:1 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> Call Trace:
> ([<00000000006a028e>] __schedule+0x406/0x91c)
> [<0000000000130f60>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0xd0/0xd4
> [<0000000000130ff6>] _cpu_up+0x3e/0x1c4
> [<0000000000131232>] cpu_up+0xb6/0xd4
> [<00000000004a5720>] device_online+0x80/0xc0
> [<00000000004a57f0>] online_store+0x90/0xb0
> ...
>
> And a deadlock.
>
> Problem is that if the last ref in put_online_cpus() can't get the
> cpu_hotplug.lock the puts_pending count is incremented, but a sleeping
> active_writer might never be woken up, therefore never exiting the loop in
> cpu_hotplug_begin().
>
> This fix removes puts_pending and turns refcount into an atomic variable. We
> also introduce a wait queue for the active_writer, to avoid possible races and
> use-after-free. There is no need to take the lock in put_online_cpus() anymore.
>
> Also rearrange the lockdep anotations so we won't get false positives.
>
> Can't reproduce it with this fix.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/cpu.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 5d22023..3f1d5ba 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -58,22 +58,23 @@ static int cpu_hotplug_disabled;
>
> static struct {
> struct task_struct *active_writer;
> - struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> + /* wait queue to wake up the active_writer */
> + wait_queue_head_t wq;
> + /* verifies that no writer will get active while readers are active */
> + struct mutex lock;
> /*
> * Also blocks the new readers during
> * an ongoing cpu hotplug operation.
> */
> - int refcount;
> - /* And allows lockless put_online_cpus(). */
> - atomic_t puts_pending;
> + atomic_t refcount;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> #endif
> } cpu_hotplug = {
> .active_writer = NULL,
> + .wq = __WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_INITIALIZER(cpu_hotplug.wq),
> .lock = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(cpu_hotplug.lock),
> - .refcount = 0,
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> .dep_map = {.name = "cpu_hotplug.lock" },
> #endif
> @@ -86,15 +87,6 @@ static struct {
> #define cpuhp_lock_acquire() lock_map_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
> #define cpuhp_lock_release() lock_map_release(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)
>
> -static void apply_puts_pending(int max)
> -{
> - int delta;
> -
> - if (atomic_read(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending) >= max) {
> - delta = atomic_xchg(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending, 0);
> - cpu_hotplug.refcount -= delta;
> - }
> -}
>
> void get_online_cpus(void)
> {
> @@ -103,9 +95,9 @@ void get_online_cpus(void)
> return;
> cpuhp_lock_acquire_read();
> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> - apply_puts_pending(65536);
> - cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> + atomic_inc(&cpu_hotplug.refcount);
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> + cpuhp_lock_release();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_online_cpus);
>
> @@ -116,9 +108,9 @@ bool try_get_online_cpus(void)
> if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock))
> return false;
> cpuhp_lock_acquire_tryread();
> - apply_puts_pending(65536);
> - cpu_hotplug.refcount++;
> + atomic_inc(&cpu_hotplug.refcount);
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> + cpuhp_lock_release();
> return true;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(try_get_online_cpus);
> @@ -127,20 +119,16 @@ void put_online_cpus(void)
> {
> if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> return;
> - if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock)) {
> - atomic_inc(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending);
> - cpuhp_lock_release();
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - if (WARN_ON(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))
> - cpu_hotplug.refcount++; /* try to fix things up */
>
> - if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer))
> - wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer);
> - mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> - cpuhp_lock_release();
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&cpu_hotplug.refcount) &&
> + waitqueue_active(&cpu_hotplug.wq))
> + wake_up(&cpu_hotplug.wq);
>
> + /* missing get - try to fix things up */
The only thing that is bugging me is this part. Without the lock we can't
guarantee that another get_online_cpus() just arrived and bumped the refcount
to 0.
Of course this only applies to misuse of put/get_online_cpus.
We could hack some loop that tries to cmp_xchng with the old value until it
fits to work around this, but wouldn't make the code any better readable.
> + if (WARN_ON(atomic_read(&cpu_hotplug.refcount) < 0))
> + atomic_set(&cpu_hotplug.refcount, 0);
> + if (waitqueue_active(&cpu_hotplug.wq))
> + wake_up(&cpu_hotplug.wq);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus);
>
> @@ -168,18 +156,22 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus);
> */
> void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> {
> + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> +
> cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
>
> - cpuhp_lock_acquire();
> for (;;) {
> + cpuhp_lock_acquire();
> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> - apply_puts_pending(1);
> - if (likely(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))
> + prepare_to_wait(&cpu_hotplug.wq, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (likely(!atomic_read(&cpu_hotplug.refcount)))
> break;
> - __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> + cpuhp_lock_release();
> schedule();
> }
> +
> + finish_wait(&cpu_hotplug.wq, &wait);
> }
>
> void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
David
--
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