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: <20170207130350.njwuiq3uh6vhj5t2@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2017 13:03:50 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        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, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:43:27PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Right. The unbind operation can set a mask that is any allowable CPU and
> > the final process_work is not done in a context that prevents
> > preemption.
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 3b93879990fd..7af165d308c4 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -2342,7 +2342,14 @@ void drain_local_pages(struct zone *zone)
> >  
> >  static void drain_local_pages_wq(struct work_struct *work)
> >  {
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Ordinarily a drain operation is bound to a CPU but may be unbound
> > +	 * after a CPU hotplug operation so it's necessary to disable
> > +	 * preemption for the drain to stabilise the CPU ID.
> > +	 */
> > +	preempt_disable();
> >  	drain_local_pages(NULL);
> > +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> [...]
> > @@ -6711,7 +6714,16 @@ static int page_alloc_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> >  
> >  	lru_add_drain_cpu(cpu);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * A per-cpu drain via a workqueue from drain_all_pages can be
> > +	 * rescheduled onto an unrelated CPU. That allows the hotplug
> > +	 * operation and the drain to potentially race on the same
> > +	 * CPU. Serialise hotplug versus drain using pcpu_drain_mutex
> > +	 */
> > +	mutex_lock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> >  	drain_pages(cpu);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_drain_mutex);
> 
> You cannot put sleepable lock inside the preempt disbaled section...
> We can make it a spinlock right?
> 

The CPU down callback can hold a mutex and at least he SLUB callback
already does so. That gives

page_alloc_cpu_dead
  mutex_lock
    drain_pages
  mutex_unlock

drain_all_pages
  mutex_lock
    queue workqueue
      drain_local_pages_wq
        preempt_disable
        drain_local_pages
        drain_pages
        preempt_enable
   flush queues
 mutex_unlock

I must be blind or maybe it's rushing between multiple concerns but which
sleepable lock is of concern?

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs