linux-kernel - Re: cpu stopper threads and load balancing leads to deadlock

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: <20180517145614.GK3803@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 May 2018 07:56:14 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: cpu stopper threads and load balancing leads to deadlock

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:23:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:03:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:30:26AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I have not queued it, but given Peter's Signed-off-by and your Tested-by
> > I would be happy to do so.
> 
> And a Changelog of course :-)

Thank you both!

Is this OK for 4.19, or do we need it for 4.18?  I am guessing 4.18,
but figured I should ask before wildly rebasing the 82 commits destined
for 4.19.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> ---
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Subject: rcu/x86: Provide early rcu_cpu_starting() callback
> 
> The x86/mtrr code does horrific things because hardware. It uses
> stop_machine_from_inactive_cpu(), which does a wakeup (of the stopper
> thread on another CPU), which uses RCU, all before the CPU is onlined.
> 
> RCU complains about this, because wakeups use RCU and RCU does
> (rightfully) not consider offline CPUs for grace-periods.
> 
> Fix this by initializing RCU way early in the MTRR case.
> 
> Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > > > index 7468de429087..07360523c3ce 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c
> > > > @@ -793,6 +793,9 @@ void mtrr_ap_init(void)
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (!use_intel() || mtrr_aps_delayed_init)
> > > >  		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	rcu_cpu_starting(smp_processor_id());
> > > > +
> > > >  	/*
> > > >  	 * Ideally we should hold mtrr_mutex here to avoid mtrr entries
> > > >  	 * changed, but this routine will be called in cpu boot time,
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > index 2a734692a581..4dab46950fdb 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > @@ -3775,6 +3775,8 @@ int rcutree_dead_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_cpu_started);
> > > > +
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * Mark the specified CPU as being online so that subsequent grace periods
> > > >   * (both expedited and normal) will wait on it.  Note that this means that
> > > > @@ -3796,6 +3798,11 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > > >  	struct rcu_state *rsp;
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu))
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu) = 1;
> > > > +
> > > >  	for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp) {
> > > >  		rdp = per_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda, cpu);
> > > >  		rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > > > @@ -3852,6 +3859,8 @@ void rcu_report_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> > > >  	preempt_enable();
> > > >  	for_each_rcu_flavor(rsp)
> > > >  		rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu(cpu, rsp);
> > > > +
> > > > +	per_cpu(rcu_cpu_started, cpu) = 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  /* Migrate the dead CPU's callbacks to the current CPU. */
> > > 
> > 
>