linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write

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: <20160510123806.GB3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 14:38:06 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for
 down_write_killable

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 01:53:20PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-16 19:43:20, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > I hit "allowing the OOM killer to select the same thread again" problem
> > ( http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160408113425.GF29820@dhcp22.suse.cz ), but
> > I think that there is a bug in down_write_killable() series (at least
> > "locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable" patch).
> > 
> > Complete log is at http://I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/tmp/serial-20160510-sem.txt.xz .
> [...]
> > 2 threads (PID: 1314 and 1443) are sleeping at rwsem_down_read_failed()
> > but no thread is sleeping at rwsem_down_write_failed_killable().
> > If there is no thread waiting for write lock, threads waiting for read
> > lock must be able to run. This suggests that one of threads which was
> > waiting for write lock forgot to wake up reader threads.
> 
> Or that the write lock holder is still keeping the lock held. I do not
> see such a process in your list though. Is it possible that the
> debug_show_all_locks would just miss it as it is not sleeping?
> 
> > Looking at rwsem_down_read_failed(), reader threads waiting for the
> > writer thread to release the lock are waiting on sem->wait_list list.
> > Looking at __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(), when the writer thread
> > escaped the
> > 
> >                  /* Block until there are no active lockers. */
> >                  do {
> >                          if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> >                                  raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> >                                  ret = ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> >                                  goto out;
> >                          }
> >                          schedule();
> >                          set_current_state(state);
> >                  } while ((count = sem->count) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK);
> > 
> > loop due to SIGKILL, I think that the writer thread needs to check for
> > remaining threads on sem->wait_list list and wake up reader threads
> > before rwsem_down_write_failed_killable() returns -EINTR.
> 
> I am not sure I understand. The rwsem counter is not write locked while
> the thread is sleeping and when we fail on the signal pending so readers
> should be able to proceed, no?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that the failure path should call rwsem_wake? I
> do not see __mutex_lock_common for killable wait doing something like
> that and rwsem_wake is explicitly documented that it is called after the
> lock state has been updated already. Now I might be missing something
> subtle here but I guess the code is correct and it is more likely that
> the holder of the lock wasn't killed but it is rather holding the lock
> and doing something else.

Mutex is much simpler; it doesn't have to do the reader-vs-writer
fairness thing.

However, at the time I was thinking that if we have:

	reader (owner)
	writer (pending)
	reader (blocked on writer)

and writer would get cancelled, the up_read() would do a wakeup and kick
the blocked reader.

But yes, immediately kicking further pending waiters might be better.

Also, looking at it again; I think we're forgetting to re-adjust the
BIAS for the cancelled writer.

Davidlohr, Waiman, can you look at this?