linux-kernel - Re: RCU lockup? (was: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 10/14] rcu: Don't redundantly disable irqs in rcu_irq

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: <CAMuHMdWyyM_gMZMNtLoTcrMF0XnTvCeyFeHfOYAgYHkO0VS93A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 10:43:19 +0100
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
	dipankar@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	pranith kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU lockup? (was: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 10/14] rcu: Don't
 redundantly disable irqs in rcu_irq_{enter,exit}())

Hi Paul,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:55:44AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 02:22:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> > This commit replaces a local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair with
>> >> > a lockdep assertion that interrupts are already disabled.  This should
>> >> > remove the corresponding overhead from the interrupt entry/exit fastpaths.
>> >> >
>> >> > This change was inspired by the fact that Iftekhar Ahmed's mutation
>> >> > testing showed that removing rcu_irq_enter()'s call to local_ird_restore()
>> >> > had no effect, which might indicate that interrupts were always enabled
>> >> > anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  include/linux/rcupdate.h   |  4 ++--
>> >> >  include/linux/rcutiny.h    |  8 ++++++++
>> >> >  include/linux/rcutree.h    |  2 ++
>> >> >  include/linux/tracepoint.h |  4 ++--
>> >> >  kernel/rcu/tree.c          | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> >> >  5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> This commit (7c9906ca5e582a773fff696975e312cef58a7386) is triggering lock ups
>> >> during boot on r8a7791/koelsch (dual Cortex A15). Probably this commit does not
>> >> contain the real bug, but a symptom.
>> >
>> > On the off-chance that it is related, here is Ding Tianhong's patch
>> > that addressed some lockups:
>> >
>> > http://www.eenyhelp.com/patch-rfc-locking-mutexes-dont-spin-owner-when-wait-list-not-null-help-215929641.html
>> >
>> > Does that help in your case?
>>
>> Unfortunately not.
>
> We could revert the RCU patch without any real problems -- it is after
> all just an optimization.

I replaced the calls to rcu_irq_{enter,exit}() in irq_{enter,exit}() by their
_irqson counterparts, which should be equivalent to the old code, but the issue
persisted. Strange...

Does it matter that arm has
#define __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED   1
?

I tried JTAG, but enabling JTAG on r8a7791/koelsch requires changing a switch
on the board, which also disables the second CPU core, and thus makes the issue
disappear...

> Hmmm...  One issue that we have seen before is that the irq-disabled
> indication is a software flag that is not always in sync with
> hardware conditions.  Might it be that we are hitting a situation where
> irqs_disabled() is giving the wrong answer, thus suppressing the lockdep
> warning?

Possible. I tried adding 'if(!irqs_disabled) printk("something")' just before
the RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(), but it never triggered. Worse, the issue went away by
doing that :-(

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds