linux-kernel - Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu

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: <20170207100503.GG5065@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:05:03 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc

On Tue 07-02-17 10:49:28, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/07/2017 10:43 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > If I'm reading this right, a hot-remove will set the pool POOL_DISASSOCIATED
> > and unbound. A workqueue queued for draining get migrated during hot-remove
> > and a drain operation will execute twice on a CPU -- one for what was
> > queued and a second time for the CPU it was migrated from. It should still
> > work with flush_work which doesn't appear to block forever if an item
> > got migrated to another workqueue. The actual drain workqueue function is
> > using the CPU ID it's currently running on so it shouldn't get confused.
> 
> Is the worker that will process this migrated workqueue also guaranteed
> to be pinned to a cpu for the whole work, though? drain_local_pages()
> needs that guarantee.

Yeah I guess you are right. This would mean that drain_local_pages_wq
should to preempt_{disable,enable} around drain_local_pages
> 
> > Tejun, did I miss anything? Does a workqueue item queued on a CPU being
> > offline get unbound and a caller can still flush it safely? In this
> > specific case, it's ok that the workqueue item does not run on the CPU it
> > was queued on.

I guess we need to do one more step and ensure that our (rebound) worker
doesn't race with the page_alloc_cpu_notify. I guess we can just cmpxchg
pcp->count in drain_pages_zone to ensure the exclusivity. Not as simple
as I originally thought but doable I guess and definitely better than
making a subtle dependency on the hotplug locks which is just a PITA to
maintain.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs