linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush !WQ_MEM

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: <56E18EF6.1010006@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:12:54 +0200
From:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if memory reclaim tries to flush
 !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue

On 03/12/15 21:26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Task or work item involved in memory reclaim trying to flush a
> non-WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue or one of its work items can lead to
> deadlock.  Trigger WARN_ONCE() if such conditions are detected.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> Hello,
> 
> So, something like this.  Seems to work fine here.  If there's no
> objection, I'm gonna push it through wq/for-4.5.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  kernel/workqueue.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> 
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2330,6 +2330,37 @@ repeat:
>  	goto repeat;
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * check_flush_dependency - check for flush dependency sanity
> + * @target_wq: workqueue being flushed
> + * @target_work: work item being flushed (NULL for workqueue flushes)
> + *
> + * %current is trying to flush the whole @target_wq or @target_work on it.
> + * If @target_wq doesn't have %WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, verify that %current is not
> + * reclaiming memory or running on a workqueue which doesn't have
> + * %WQ_MEM_RECLAIM as that can break forward-progress guarantee leading to
> + * a deadlock.
> + */
> +static void check_flush_dependency(struct workqueue_struct *target_wq,
> +				   struct work_struct *target_work)
> +{
> +	work_func_t target_func = target_work ? target_work->func : NULL;
> +	struct worker *worker;
> +
> +	if (target_wq->flags & WQ_MEM_RECLAIM)
> +		return;
> +
> +	worker = current_wq_worker();
> +
> +	WARN_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC,
> +		  "workqueue: PF_MEMALLOC task %d(%s) is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM %s:%pf",
> +		  current->pid, current->comm, target_wq->name, target_func);
> +	WARN_ONCE(worker && (worker->current_pwq->wq->flags & WQ_MEM_RECLAIM),
> +		  "workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM %s:%pf is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM %s:%pf",
> +		  worker->current_pwq->wq->name, worker->current_func,
> +		  target_wq->name, target_func);
> +}
> +
>  struct wq_barrier {
>  	struct work_struct	work;
>  	struct completion	done;
> @@ -2539,6 +2570,8 @@ void flush_workqueue(struct workqueue_st
>  		list_add_tail(&this_flusher.list, &wq->flusher_overflow);
>  	}
>  
> +	check_flush_dependency(wq, NULL);
> +
>  	mutex_unlock(&wq->mutex);
>  
>  	wait_for_completion(&this_flusher.done);
> @@ -2711,6 +2744,8 @@ static bool start_flush_work(struct work
>  		pwq = worker->current_pwq;
>  	}
>  
> +	check_flush_dependency(pwq->wq, work);
> +
>  	insert_wq_barrier(pwq, barr, work, worker);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>  
> 

I am hitting the warnings when using cancel_delayed_work_sync().  I would
have thought that forward progress would still be guaranteed in that case.
Is it true that it is not?