| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20190613075651.351802042@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:33:13 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 30/81] percpu: remove spurious lock dependency between percpu and sched
[ Upstream commit 198790d9a3aeaef5792d33a560020861126edc22 ]
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>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
mm/percpu.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 0c06e2f549a7..bc58bcbe4b60 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1702,6 +1702,7 @@ void free_percpu(void __percpu *ptr)
struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
unsigned long flags;
int off;
+ bool need_balance = false;
if (!ptr)
return;
@@ -1723,7 +1724,7 @@ 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;
}
}
@@ -1731,6 +1732,9 @@ 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);
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists