linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some cases

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 2014 20:20:48 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	borntraeger@...ibm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, bp@...e.de,
	jkosina@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some
	cases - deadlock

On 12/12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> > This is subjective, but how about
> >
> > 	static bool xxx(void)
> > 	{
> > 		mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > 		if (atomic_read(&cpu_hotplug.refcount) == 0)
> > 			return true;
> > 		mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> > 		return false;
> > 	}
> >
> > 	void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> > 	{
> > 		cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
> >
> > 		cpuhp_lock_acquire();
> > 		wait_event(&cpu_hotplug.wq, xxx());
> > 	}
> >
> > instead?
> >
> > Oleg.
> >
>
> [   50.662459] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=2 set at [<000000000017340e>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x7a/0x124
> [   50.662472] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   50.662475] WARNING: at kernel/sched/core.c:7301
> [   50.662477] Modules linked in:
> [   50.662482] CPU: 5 PID: 225 Comm: cpu_start_stop. Not tainted 3.18.0+ #59
> [   50.662485] task: 0000000001f94b20 ti: 0000000001ffc000 task.ti: 0000000001ffc000
> ...
>
> Looks like your suggestion won't work. We can only set the task to
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE after taking the lock.

Yeees, this warning (and wait_woken() helpers) was specially added
to catch/fix the problem like this, sorry for confusion.

Easy to fix, just

	-	mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
	+	if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock))
	+		return false;

If .lock is locked then it is hold by get_online_cpus(), and it is going
to increment the counter.

I would like to say that this is what I actually meant but now I can not
recall if this is true ;)

But please ignore. Your next version looks simple/clear enough.

Oleg.

--
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/