linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or

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: <20170405152141.0e901a6b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:21:41 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271
 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:08:10 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:54:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:59:25 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > > Note, this has nothing to do with trace_rcu_dyntick(). It's the
> > > > function tracer tracing inside RCU, calling the stack tracer to record
> > > > a new stack if it sees its larger than any stack before. All I need is
> > > > a way to tell the stack tracer to not record a stack if it is in this
> > > > RCU critical section.
> > > > 
> > > > If you can add a "in_rcu_critical_section()" function, that the stack
> > > > tracer can test, and simply exit out like it does if in_nmi() is set,
> > > > that would work too. Below is my current work around.    
> > > 
> > > Except that the rcu_irq_enter() would already have triggered the bug
> > > that was (allegedly) fixed by my earlier patch.  So, yes, the check for
> > > rcu_is_watching() would work around this bug, but the hope is that
> > > with my earlier fix, this workaround would not be needed.  
> > 
> > Note, if I had a "in_rcu_critical_section()" I wouldn't need to call
> > rcu_irq_enter(). I could fall out before that. My current workaround
> > does the check, even though it breaks things, it would hopefully fix
> > things as it calls rcu_irq_exit() immediately.  
> 
> OK, color me confused.  What would "in_rcu_critical_section()" do?
> 
> The rcu_is_watching() function tells you that RCU is not in an extended
> quiescent state, though its return value can be iffy in the middle of
> rcu_eqs_enter_common() -- which is why interrupts are disabled there.
> In preemptible RCU, you can (but shouldn't) use rcu_preempt_depth()
> to determine whether you are within an RCU read-side critical section,
> which is what in_rcu_critical_section() sounds like to me, but I don't
> see how this information would help in this situation.
> 
> What am I missing here?
> 

Would in_guts_of_internal_rcu_infrastructure_code() work? :-)

Here's the crucial part of that stack dump again:

 save_stack_trace+0x1b/0x1d
 check_stack+0xec/0x24a
 stack_trace_call+0x40/0x53
 0xffffffffa0026077
 ? ftrace_graph_caller+0x78/0xa8
 ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 ? rcu_eqs_enter_common.constprop.71+0x5/0x108
 rcu_eqs_enter_common.constprop.71+0x5/0x108
 rcu_idle_enter+0x51/0x72


The stack trace was called on rcu_eqs_enter_common() inside the
rcu_idle_enter() function call.

Perhaps if I just let rcu disable stack tracing? Something like this:

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 50fee76..f894fc3 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -853,8 +853,10 @@ void rcu_idle_enter(void)
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	local_irq_save(flags);
+	disable_stack_tracer();
 	rcu_eqs_enter(false);
 	rcu_sysidle_enter(0);
+	enable_stack_tracer();
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_idle_enter);


-- Steve