linux-kernel - Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25

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: <20160204112044.GE4956@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:20:44 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@...system.cz>
Subject: Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25

On Thu 04-02-16 11:46:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:06 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:01:53PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > Hm, so it's ok to queue work to an offline CPU?  What happens if it
> > > > doesn't come back for an eternity or two?
> > > 
> > > Right now, it just loses affinity....
> > 
> > WRT affinity...
> > 
> > Somebody somewhere queues a delayed work, a timer is started on CPUX,
> > work is targeted at CPUX.  Now wash/rinse/repeat mod_delayed_work()
> > along with migrations.  Should __queue_delayed_work() not refrain from
> > altering dwork->cpu once set?
> > 
> > I'm also wondering why 22b886dd only applies to kernels >= 4.2.
> > 
> > <quote>
> > Regardless of the previous CPU a timer was on, add_timer_on()
> > currently simply sets timer->flags to the new CPU.  As the caller must
> > be seeing the timer as idle, this is locally fine, but the timer
> > leaving the old base while unlocked can lead to race conditions as
> > follows.
> > 
> > Let's say timer was on cpu 0.
> > 
> >   cpu 0                                 cpu 1
> >   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   del_timer(timer) succeeds
> >                                         del_timer(timer)
> >                                           lock_timer_base(timer) locks cpu_0_base
> >   add_timer_on(timer, 1)
> >     spin_lock(&cpu_1_base->lock)
> >     timer->flags set to cpu_1_base
> >     operates on @timer                    operates on @timer
> > </quote>
> > 
> > What's the difference between...
> >      timer->flags = (timer->flags & ~TIMER_BASEMASK) | cpu;
> > and...
> >      timer_set_base(timer, base);
> > 
> > ...that makes that fix unneeded prior to 4.2?  We take the same locks
> > in < 4.2 kernels, so seemingly both will diddle concurrently above.
> 
> Indeed, you are right.
> 
> The same can happen on pre 4.2, just the fix does not apply as we changed the
> internals how the base is managed in the timer itself. Backport below.

Thanks for backport Thomas and to Mike for persistence :). I've asked my
friend seeing crashes with 3.18.25 to try whether this patch fixes the
issues. It may take some time so stay tuned...

								Honza

> 8<----------------------------
> 
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -956,13 +956,26 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(add_timer);
>   */
>  void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *timer, int cpu)
>  {
> -	struct tvec_base *base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu);
> +	struct tvec_base *new_base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu);
> +	struct tvec_base *base;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	timer_stats_timer_set_start_info(timer);
>  	BUG_ON(timer_pending(timer) || !timer->function);
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, flags);
> -	timer_set_base(timer, base);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If @timer was on a different CPU, it must be migrated with the
> +	 * old base locked to prevent other operations proceeding with the
> +	 * wrong base locked.  See lock_timer_base().
> +	 */
> +	base = lock_timer_base(timer, &flags);
> +	if (base != new_base) {
> +		timer_set_base(timer, NULL);
> +		spin_unlock(&base->lock);
> +		base = new_base;
> +		spin_lock(&base->lock);
> +		timer_set_base(timer, base);
> +	}
>  	debug_activate(timer, timer->expires);
>  	internal_add_timer(base, timer);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR