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: <20190603114455.GA16119@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:44:56 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, mojha@...eaurora.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from
 disrupting offline

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
> > after idle entry and the subsequent call to cpuhp_report_idle_dead().
> > Once execution passes the call to rcu_report_dead(), RCU is ignoring
> > the CPU, which results in lockdep complaints when the interrupt handler
> > uses RCU:
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index 448efc06bb2d..3b33d83b793d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -930,6 +930,7 @@ void cpuhp_report_idle_dead(void)
> >  	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = this_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state);
> >  
> >  	BUG_ON(st->state != CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE);
> > +	local_irq_disable();
> >  	rcu_report_dead(smp_processor_id());
> >  	st->state = CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD;
> >  	udelay(1000);
> 
> Urgh... I'd almost suggest we do something like the below.
> 
> 
> But then I started looking at the various arch_cpu_idle_dead()
> implementations and ran into arm's implementation, which is calling
> complete() where generic code already established this isn't possible
> (see for example cpuhp_report_idle_dead()).

IIRC, that should have been migrated over to cpu_report_death(), as
arm64 was in commit:

  05981277a4de1ad6 ("arm64: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code")

... but it looks like Paul's patch to do so [1] fell through the cracks;
I'm not aware of any reason that shouldn't have been taken.
  
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1431467407-1223-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com/

Paul, do you want to resend that?

For arm64 we mask SError, debug, and FIQ exceptions later in our
cpu_die(). FIQ should never happen, but we could take SError or debug
exceptions, and I think we end up using RCU behind the scenes in the
handlers for those. :/

Thanks,
Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ