linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpuset: fix a deadlock due to incomplete patching of cpusets

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170728093047.ykgbufjj74xa5x3r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 11:30:47 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...mo.com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Cliff Spradlin <cspradlin@...mo.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpuset: fix a deadlock due to incomplete patching of
 cpusets_enabled()

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [+CC PeterZ]
> 
> On 07/27/2017 06:46 PM, Dima Zavin wrote:
> > In codepaths that use the begin/retry interface for reading
> > mems_allowed_seq with irqs disabled, there exists a race condition that
> > stalls the patch process after only modifying a subset of the
> > static_branch call sites.
> > 
> > This problem manifested itself as a dead lock in the slub
> > allocator, inside get_any_partial. The loop reads
> > mems_allowed_seq value (via read_mems_allowed_begin),
> > performs the defrag operation, and then verifies the consistency
> > of mem_allowed via the read_mems_allowed_retry and the cookie
> > returned by xxx_begin. The issue here is that both begin and retry
> > first check if cpusets are enabled via cpusets_enabled() static branch.
> > This branch can be rewritted dynamically (via cpuset_inc) if a new
> > cpuset is created. The x86 jump label code fully synchronizes across
> > all CPUs for every entry it rewrites. If it rewrites only one of the
> > callsites (specifically the one in read_mems_allowed_retry) and then
> > waits for the smp_call_function(do_sync_core) to complete while a CPU is
> > inside the begin/retry section with IRQs off and the mems_allowed value
> > is changed, we can hang. This is because begin() will always return 0
> > (since it wasn't patched yet) while retry() will test the 0 against
> > the actual value of the seq counter.
> 
> Hm I wonder if there are other static branch users potentially having
> similar problem. Then it would be best to fix this at static branch
> level. Any idea, Peter? An inelegant solution would be to have indicate
> static_branch_(un)likely() callsites ordering for the patching. I.e.
> here we would make sure that read_mems_allowed_begin() callsites are
> patched before read_mems_allowed_retry() when enabling the static key,
> and the opposite order when disabling the static key.

I'm not aware of any other sure ordering requirements. But you can
manually create this order by using 2 static keys. Then flip them in the
desired order.