| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171006142009.xfhlchig374eew4h@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 16:20:09 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Use rcu instead of stop_machine in
set_wedged
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:03:49PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-10-06 10:06:37)
> > stop_machine is not really a locking primitive we should use, except
> > when the hw folks tell us the hw is broken and that's the only way to
> > work around it.
> >
> > This patch tries to address the locking abuse of stop_machine() from
> >
> > commit 20e4933c478a1ca694b38fa4ac44d99e659941f5
> > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> > Date: Tue Nov 22 14:41:21 2016 +0000
> >
> > drm/i915: Stop the machine as we install the wedged submit_request handler
> >
> > Chris said parts of the reasons for going with stop_machine() was that
> > it's no overhead for the fast-path. But these callbacks use irqsave
> > spinlocks and do a bunch of MMIO, and rcu_read_lock is _real_ fast.
> >
> > To stay as close as possible to the stop_machine semantics we first
> > update all the submit function pointers to the nop handler, then call
> > synchronize_rcu() to make sure no new requests can be submitted. This
> > should give us exactly the huge barrier we want.
> >
> > I pondered whether we should annotate engine->submit_request as __rcu
> > and use rcu_assign_pointer and rcu_dereference on it. But the reason
> > behind those is to make sure the compiler/cpu barriers are there for
> > when you have an actual data structure you point at, to make sure all
> > the writes are seen correctly on the read side. But we just have a
> > function pointer, and .text isn't changed, so no need for these
> > barriers and hence no need for annotations.
> >
> > This should fix the followwing lockdep splat:
> >
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1 Tainted: G U
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > kworker/3:4/562 is trying to acquire lock:
> > (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffff8113d4bc>] stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #6 (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> > mutex_lock_interruptible_nested+0x1b/0x20
> > i915_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x51/0x130 [i915]
> > i915_gem_fault+0x209/0x650 [i915]
> > __do_fault+0x1e/0x80
> > __handle_mm_fault+0xa08/0xed0
> > handle_mm_fault+0x156/0x300
> > __do_page_fault+0x2c5/0x570
> > do_page_fault+0x28/0x250
> > page_fault+0x22/0x30
> >
> > -> #5 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > __might_fault+0x68/0x90
> > _copy_to_user+0x23/0x70
> > filldir+0xa5/0x120
> > dcache_readdir+0xf9/0x170
> > iterate_dir+0x69/0x1a0
> > SyS_getdents+0xa5/0x140
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> >
> > -> #4 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){++++}:
> > down_write+0x3b/0x70
> > handle_create+0xcb/0x1e0
> > devtmpfsd+0x139/0x180
> > kthread+0x152/0x190
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> >
> > -> #3 ((complete)&req.done){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > wait_for_common+0x58/0x210
> > wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x20
> > devtmpfs_create_node+0x13d/0x160
> > device_add+0x5eb/0x620
> > device_create_groups_vargs+0xe0/0xf0
> > device_create+0x3a/0x40
> > msr_device_create+0x2b/0x40
> > cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xc9/0xbf0
> > cpuhp_thread_fun+0x17b/0x240
> > smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
> > kthread+0x152/0x190
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> >
> > -> #2 (cpuhp_state-up){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > cpuhp_issue_call+0x133/0x1c0
> > __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x139/0x2a0
> > __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> > page_writeback_init+0x43/0x67
> > pagecache_init+0x3d/0x42
> > start_kernel+0x3a8/0x3fc
> > x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> > x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> > verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
> >
> > -> #1 (cpuhp_state_mutex){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> > mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> > __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x53/0x2a0
> > __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> > page_alloc_init+0x28/0x30
> > start_kernel+0x145/0x3fc
> > x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> > x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> > verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
> >
> > -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
> > check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> > stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> > i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
> > i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
> > i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
> > i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
> > hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
> > i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
> > process_one_work+0x233/0x660
> > worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
> > kthread+0x152/0x190
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > Chain exists of:
> > cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev->struct_mutex
> >
> > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > 3 locks held by kworker/3:4/562:
> > #0: ("events_long"){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c64a>] process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
> > #1: ((&(&i915->gpu_error.hangcheck_work)->work)){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c64a>] process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
> > #2: (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 3 PID: 562 Comm: kworker/3:4 Tainted: G U 4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1
> > Hardware name: /NUC7i5BNB, BIOS BNKBL357.86A.0048.2017.0704.1415 07/04/2017
> > Workqueue: events_long i915_hangcheck_elapsed [i915]
> > Call Trace:
> > dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
> > print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
> > ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> > check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> > ? irq_work_queue+0x86/0xe0
> > ? wake_up_klogd+0x53/0x70
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> > ? i915_gem_object_truncate+0x50/0x50 [i915]
> > cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> > ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> > stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> > i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
> > i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
> > i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
> > ? gen8_gt_irq_ack+0x170/0x170 [i915]
> > ? work_on_cpu_safe+0x60/0x60
> > i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
> > ? vsnprintf+0xd1/0x4b0
> > ? scnprintf+0x3a/0x70
> > hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
> > ? intel_runtime_pm_put+0x56/0xa0 [i915]
> > i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
> > process_one_work+0x233/0x660
> > worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
> > kthread+0x152/0x190
> > ? process_one_work+0x660/0x660
> > ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> > Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
> > i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang
> > Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
> > i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang
> >
> > v2: Have 1 global synchronize_rcu() barrier across all engines, and
> > improve commit message.
> >
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102886
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103096
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@...el.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 31 +++++++++--------------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 2 ++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c | 2 ++
> > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index ab8c6946fea4..e79a6ca60265 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -3020,16 +3020,8 @@ static void nop_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> > intel_engine_init_global_seqno(request->engine, request->global_seqno);
> > }
> >
> > -static void engine_set_wedged(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > +static void engine_complete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > {
> > - /* We need to be sure that no thread is running the old callback as
> > - * we install the nop handler (otherwise we would submit a request
> > - * to hardware that will never complete). In order to prevent this
> > - * race, we wait until the machine is idle before making the swap
> > - * (using stop_machine()).
> > - */
> > - engine->submit_request = nop_submit_request;
> > -
> > /* Mark all executing requests as skipped */
> > engine->cancel_requests(engine);
>
> How are we planning to serialise the intel_engine_init_global_seqno()
> here with the in-flight nop_submit? With sufficient thrust we will get a
> stale breadcrumb and an incomplete request.
Yeah that part looks indeed fishy. Well the entire "let the nop handler
fake-complete requests" logic is something I don't really understand. I
guess there's an exclusive relationship between requests handled directly
(and cancelled in engine->cancel_request) and requests with external
dma_fence dependencies.
But then I'm not really seeing what I'm changing, since even with the stop
machine you might end up with a bunch of requests depending upon external
fences, which then all complete at roughly the same time and race multiple
calls to intel_engine_init_global_seqno with each another.
With the fake submission, do we really need to call intel_engine_init_global_seqno?
So yeah, no idea, but pretty sure I didn't make it worse.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists