linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:01:26 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies.

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:31:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:17:38 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() is currently calling rcu_lock_break()
> > for every 1024 threads. But check_hung_task() is very slow if printk()
> > was called, and is very fast otherwise. If many threads within some 1024
> > threads called printk(), the RCU grace period might be extended enough
> > to trigger RCU stall warnings. Therefore, calling rcu_lock_break() for
> > every some fixed jiffies will be safer.
> > 
> > --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> > +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> >   * is disabled during the critical section. It also controls the size of
> >   * the RCU grace period. So it needs to be upper-bound.
> >   */
> > -#define HUNG_TASK_BATCHING 1024
> > +#define HUNG_TASK_LOCK_BREAK (HZ / 10)
> 
> This won't work correctly if rcu_cpu_stall_timeout is set to something
> stupidly small.  Perhaps is would be better to make this code aware of
> the current rcu_cpu_stall_timeout setting?

Good point.

However, the reason that I wasn't worried because any settings of
rcu_cpu_stall_timeout less than 3 seconds are cheerfully bumped up to
3 seconds, so we have a safety factor of 30 as things stand.

I could export the minimum, though, if that would be helpful.

							Thanx, Paul