linux-kernel - Re: BUG_ON in rcu_sync

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: <57D80EB8.9080405@kyup.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:35:36 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <kernel@...p.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG_ON in rcu_sync_func triggered



On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw code,
> 
> Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
> 
>> could test the debugging patch below meanwhile?
> 
> Yes please. I'll send you another patch (hopefully fix) later, but it
> would be nice if you can test this patch to get more info.

I've already started testing with this patch on 4.4.20 this time to see
what happens, but I'll likely get results tomorrow. For now I wasn't
able to crash it.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Oleg.
> 
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/sync.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/sync.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ void rcu_sync_init(struct rcu_sync *rsp, enum rcu_sync_type type)
>>  	rsp->gp_type = type;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void xxx(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>> +{
>> +	pr_crit("XXX: %p gp=%d cnt=%d cb=%d\n",
>> +		rsp, rsp->gp_state, rsp->gp_count, rsp->cb_state);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /**
>>   * rcu_sync_enter() - Force readers onto slowpath
>>   * @rsp: Pointer to rcu_sync structure to use for synchronization
>> @@ -102,13 +108,14 @@ void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>>  	bool need_wait, need_sync;
>>  
>>  	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_count < 0)) xxx(rsp);
>>  	need_wait = rsp->gp_count++;
>>  	need_sync = rsp->gp_state == GP_IDLE;
>>  	if (need_sync)
>>  		rsp->gp_state = GP_PENDING;
>>  	spin_unlock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
>>  
>> -	BUG_ON(need_wait && need_sync);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(need_wait && need_sync)) xxx(rsp);
>>  
>>  	if (need_sync) {
>>  		gp_ops[rsp->gp_type].sync();
>> @@ -122,7 +129,7 @@ void rcu_sync_enter(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>>  		 * Nobody has yet been allowed the 'fast' path and thus we can
>>  		 * avoid doing any sync(). The callback will get 'dropped'.
>>  		 */
>> -		BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
>> +		if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED)) xxx(rsp);
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -149,8 +156,9 @@ static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>>  	struct rcu_sync *rsp = container_of(rcu, struct rcu_sync, cb_head);
>>  	unsigned long flags;
>>  
>> -	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
>> -	BUG_ON(rsp->cb_state == CB_IDLE);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_count < 0)) xxx(rsp);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED)) xxx(rsp);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->cb_state == CB_IDLE)) xxx(rsp);
>>  
>>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&rsp->rss_lock, flags);
>>  	if (rsp->gp_count) {
>> @@ -189,6 +197,7 @@ static void rcu_sync_func(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>>  void rcu_sync_exit(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>>  {
>>  	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_count <= 0)) xxx(rsp);
>>  	if (!--rsp->gp_count) {
>>  		if (rsp->cb_state == CB_IDLE) {
>>  			rsp->cb_state = CB_PENDING;
>> @@ -208,7 +217,7 @@ void rcu_sync_dtor(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>>  {
>>  	int cb_state;
>>  
>> -	BUG_ON(rsp->gp_count);
>> +	if (WARN_ON(rsp->gp_count)) xxx(rsp);
>>  
>>  	spin_lock_irq(&rsp->rss_lock);
>>  	if (rsp->cb_state == CB_REPLAY)
>> @@ -218,6 +227,6 @@ void rcu_sync_dtor(struct rcu_sync *rsp)
>>  
>>  	if (cb_state != CB_IDLE) {
>>  		gp_ops[rsp->gp_type].wait();
>> -		BUG_ON(rsp->cb_state != CB_IDLE);
>> +		if (WARN_ON(rsp->cb_state != CB_IDLE)) xxx(rsp);
>>  	}
>>  }
>