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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue,  7 May 2019 18:43:20 -0700
From:   John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
To:     Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH] percpu: remove spurious lock dependency between percpu and sched

In free_percpu() we sometimes call pcpu_schedule_balance_work() to
queue a work item (which does a wakeup) while holding pcpu_lock.
This creates an unnecessary lock dependency between pcpu_lock and
the scheduler's pi_lock.  There are other places where we call
pcpu_schedule_balance_work() without hold pcpu_lock, and this case
doesn't need to be different.

Moving the call outside the lock prevents the following lockdep splat
when running tools/testing/selftests/bpf/{test_maps,test_progs} in
sequence with lockdep enabled:

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.1.0-dbg-DEV #1 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kworker/23:255/18872 is trying to acquire lock:
000000000bc79290 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: __queue_work+0xb2/0x520

but task is already holding lock:
00000000e3e7a6aa (pcpu_lock){..-.}, at: free_percpu+0x36/0x260

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #4 (pcpu_lock){..-.}:
       lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
       _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50
       pcpu_alloc+0xfa/0x780
       __alloc_percpu_gfp+0x12/0x20
       alloc_htab_elem+0x184/0x2b0
       __htab_percpu_map_update_elem+0x252/0x290
       bpf_percpu_hash_update+0x7c/0x130
       __do_sys_bpf+0x1912/0x1be0
       __x64_sys_bpf+0x1a/0x20
       do_syscall_64+0x59/0x400
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe

-> #3 (&htab->buckets[i].lock){....}:
       lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
       _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50
       htab_map_update_elem+0x1af/0x3a0

-> #2 (&rq->lock){-.-.}:
       lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
       _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
       task_fork_fair+0x37/0x160
       sched_fork+0x211/0x310
       copy_process.part.43+0x7b1/0x2160
       _do_fork+0xda/0x6b0
       kernel_thread+0x29/0x30
       rest_init+0x22/0x260
       arch_call_rest_init+0xe/0x10
       start_kernel+0x4fd/0x520
       x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26
       x86_64_start_kernel+0x6f/0x72
       secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0

-> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}:
       lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
       _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50
       try_to_wake_up+0x41/0x600
       wake_up_process+0x15/0x20
       create_worker+0x16b/0x1e0
       workqueue_init+0x279/0x2ee
       kernel_init_freeable+0xf7/0x288
       kernel_init+0xf/0x180
       ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30

-> #0 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x101f/0x12a0
       lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
       _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
       __queue_work+0xb2/0x520
       queue_work_on+0x38/0x80
       free_percpu+0x221/0x260
       pcpu_freelist_destroy+0x11/0x20
       stack_map_free+0x2a/0x40
       bpf_map_free_deferred+0x3c/0x50
       process_one_work+0x1f7/0x580
       worker_thread+0x54/0x410
       kthread+0x10f/0x150
       ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  &(&pool->lock)->rlock --> &htab->buckets[i].lock --> pcpu_lock

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(pcpu_lock);
                               lock(&htab->buckets[i].lock);
                               lock(pcpu_lock);
  lock(&(&pool->lock)->rlock);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

3 locks held by kworker/23:255/18872:
 #0: 00000000b36a6e16 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.},
     at: process_one_work+0x17a/0x580
 #1: 00000000dfd966f0 ((work_completion)(&map->work)){+.+.},
     at: process_one_work+0x17a/0x580
 #2: 00000000e3e7a6aa (pcpu_lock){..-.},
     at: free_percpu+0x36/0x260

stack backtrace:
CPU: 23 PID: 18872 Comm: kworker/23:255 Not tainted 5.1.0-dbg-DEV #1
Hardware name: ...
Workqueue: events bpf_map_free_deferred
Call Trace:
 dump_stack+0x67/0x95
 print_circular_bug.isra.38+0x1c6/0x220
 check_prev_add.constprop.50+0x9f6/0xd20
 __lock_acquire+0x101f/0x12a0
 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180
 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
 __queue_work+0xb2/0x520
 queue_work_on+0x38/0x80
 free_percpu+0x221/0x260
 pcpu_freelist_destroy+0x11/0x20
 stack_map_free+0x2a/0x40
 bpf_map_free_deferred+0x3c/0x50
 process_one_work+0x1f7/0x580
 worker_thread+0x54/0x410
 kthread+0x10f/0x150
 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30

Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
---
 mm/percpu.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 68dd2e7e73b5..d832793bf83a 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1738,6 +1738,7 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
 	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	int off;
+	bool need_balance = false;
 
 	if (!ptr)
 		return;
@@ -1759,7 +1760,7 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
 
 		list_for_each_entry(pos, &pcpu_slot[pcpu_nr_slots - 1], list)
 			if (pos != chunk) {
-				pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
+				need_balance = true;
 				break;
 			}
 	}
@@ -1767,6 +1768,9 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
 	trace_percpu_free_percpu(chunk->base_addr, off, ptr);
 
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pcpu_lock, flags);
+
+	if (need_balance)
+		pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(free_percpu);
 
-- 
2.21.0.1020.gf2820cf01a-goog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists