linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

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: <20170816043746.GQ20323@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:37:46 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, peterz@...radead.org,
        walken@...gle.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05:31PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:16:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > So with the latest fixes there's a new lockdep warning on one of my testboxes:
> > > 
> > > [   11.322487] EXT4-fs (sda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null)
> > > 
> > > [   11.495661] ======================================================
> > > [   11.502093] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > [   11.508507] 4.13.0-rc5-00497-g73135c58-dirty #1 Not tainted
> > > [   11.514313] ------------------------------------------------------
> > > [   11.520725] umount/533 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [   11.525657]  ((complete)&barr->done){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fdbb3>] flush_work+0x213/0x2f0
> > > [   11.534411] 
> > >                but task is already holding lock:
> > > [   11.540661]  (lock#3){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8122678d>] lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked+0x3d/0x190
> > > [   11.549613] 
> > >                which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > > 
> > > The full splat is below. The kernel config is nothing fancy - distro derived, 
> > > pretty close to defconfig, with lockdep enabled.
> > 
> > I see...
> > 
> > Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be released
> > Task   B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock#3 to be released
> > Task   C : acquired of lock#3 -> wait for completion of barr->done
> 
> >From the stack trace below, this barr->done is for flush_work() in
> lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked(), i.e. for work "per_cpu(lru_add_drain_work)"
> 
> > Worker D : wait for wfc.work to be released -> will complete barr->done
> 
> and this barr->done is for work "wfc.work".

I think it can be the same instance. wait_for_completion() in flush_work()
e.g. at task C in my example, waits for completion which we expect to be
done by a worker e.g. worker D in my example.

I think the problem is caused by a write-acquisition of wfc.work in
process_one_work(). The acquisition of wfc.work should be reenterable,
that is, read-acquisition, shouldn't it?

I might be wrong... Please fix me if so.

Thank you,
Byungchul

> So those two barr->done could not be the same instance, IIUC. Therefore
> the deadlock case is not possible.
> 
> The problem here is all barr->done instances are initialized at
> insert_wq_barrier() and they belongs to the same lock class, to fix
> this, we need to differ barr->done with different lock classes based on
> the corresponding works.
> 
> How about the this(only compilation test):
> 
> ----------------->8
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index e86733a8b344..d14067942088 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2431,6 +2431,27 @@ struct wq_barrier {
>  	struct task_struct	*task;	/* purely informational */
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE
> +# define INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, func, target)				\
> +do {										\
> +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&(barr)->work, func);					\
> +	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&(barr)->work));	\
> +	lockdep_init_map_crosslock((struct lockdep_map *)&(barr)->done.map,	\
> +				   "(complete)" #barr,				\
> +				   (target)->lockdep_map.key, 1); 		\
> +	__init_completion(&barr->done);						\
> +	barr->task = current;							\
> +} while (0)
> +#else
> +# define INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, func, target)				\
> +do {										\
> +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&(barr)->work, func);					\
> +	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&(barr)->work));	\
> +	init_completion(&barr->done);						\
> +	barr->task = current;							\
> +} while (0)
> +#endif
> +
>  static void wq_barrier_func(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	struct wq_barrier *barr = container_of(work, struct wq_barrier, work);
> @@ -2474,10 +2495,7 @@ static void insert_wq_barrier(struct pool_workqueue *pwq,
>  	 * checks and call back into the fixup functions where we
>  	 * might deadlock.
>  	 */
> -	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&barr->work, wq_barrier_func);
> -	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&barr->work));
> -	init_completion(&barr->done);
> -	barr->task = current;
> +	INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, wq_barrier_func, target);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If @target is currently being executed, schedule the