linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] openrisc: add tick timer multi-core sync logic

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: <132de3e6-52b5-b5fe-8199-9da427a1baf4@mips.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:26:43 +0000
From:   Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...s.com>
To:     Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
CC:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
        Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@...nalahti.fi>,
        Jan Henrik Weinstock <jan.weinstock@....rwth-aachen.de>,
        Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@...tec.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
        Matija Glavinic Pecotic <matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@...ia.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...s.com>,
        Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] openrisc: add tick timer multi-core sync logic



On 01/11/17 00:34, Stafford Horne wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 08:17:59AM +0900, Stafford Horne wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:06:21PM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/10/17 23:11, Stafford Horne wrote:
>>>> In case timers are not in sync when cpus start (i.e. hot plug / offset
>>>> resets) we need to synchronize the secondary cpus internal timer with
>>>> the main cpu.  This is needed as in OpenRISC SMP there is only one
>>>> clocksource registered which reads from the same ttcr register on each
>>>> cpu.
>>>>
>>>> This synchronization routine heavily borrows from mips implementation that
>>>> does something similar.
>> [..]
>>>> diff --git a/arch/openrisc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/openrisc/kernel/smp.c
>>>> index 4763b8b9161e..4d80ce6fa045 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/openrisc/kernel/smp.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/openrisc/kernel/smp.c
>>>> @@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
>>>>    		pr_crit("CPU%u: failed to start\n", cpu);
>>>>    		return -EIO;
>>>>    	}
>>>> +	synchronise_count_master(cpu);
>>>>    	return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>> @@ -129,6 +130,8 @@ asmlinkage __init void secondary_start_kernel(void)
>>>>    	set_cpu_online(cpu, true);
>>>>    	complete(&cpu_running);
>>>> +	synchronise_count_slave(cpu);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Note that until 8f46cca1e6c06a058374816887059bcc017b382f, the MIPS timer
>>> synchronization code contained the possibility of deadlock. If you mark a
>>> CPU online before it goes into the synchronize loop, then the boot CPU can
>>> schedule a different thread and send IPIs to all "online" CPUs. It gets
>>> stuck waiting for the secondary to ack it's IPI, since this secondary CPU
>>> has not enabled IRQs yet, and is stuck waiting for the master to synchronise
>>> with it. The system then deadlocks.
>>> Commit 8f46cca1e6c06a058374816887059bcc017b382f fixed this for MIPS and you
>>> might want to similarly move the
>>>
>>> set_cpu_online(cpu, true);
>>>
>>> after counters are synchronized.
>> Thank you for the heads up.  I do remember having interim issues with the timer
>> syncing but I havent seen it for a while.  I think I fixed it by also moving
>> synchronise_count_slave.
>>
>> Let me double check.  Also, I see your patch 8f46cca1e6c06a0583748168 was merged
>> last year?
> Hello,
>
> I should have read a bit more closely, definitely this could be an issue if the
> boot cpu has other things running.
>
> However, looking at mainline I can see the clock sync comes after set_cpu_online
> again after this patch in mips.
>
>    6f542ebeaee0 MIPS: Fix race on setting and getting cpu_online_mask
>    Author: Matija Glavinic Pecotic <matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@...ia.com>
>
> Is this deadlock an issue in mips again?
>
> -Stafford

Hi Stafford,

Yes - the deadlock is an issue again, it was re-introduced by 
6f542ebeaee0. That patch was based on testing with 4.4, where the core 
CPU hotplug code did not contain it's own completion event. Since commit 
8df3e07e7f21f ("cpu/hotplug: Let upcoming cpu bring itself fully up"), 
which was added in 4.6, this is no longer the case and there is no race 
condition. I have https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/17376/ pending 
which fixes this race in pre-4.6 stable kernels, and guards against the 
deadlock as well. Unfortunately because of the backport to stable this 
gets a little more complex.

Unless your patches to add SMP are going to be applied to pre-4.6 
kernels, then you will not suffer the race condition. The potential 
deadlock is the only pitfall you need to guard against - which will be 
OK if you put the clock sync before marking the CPU online.

Thanks,
Matt