| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:25:51 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:46:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 05:27:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Hello rcu folks,
> >
> > I thought it'd better to announce it if those spawnings fail because of
> > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active.
> >
> > Of course, with the current code, it never happens though.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> It seems in the right spirit, but with your patch a warning always fires.
> rcu_prepare_cpu() is called multiple times, once from rcu_init() and then
> from hotplug paths.
>
> Warning splat stack looks like:
>
> [ 0.398767] Call Trace:
> [ 0.398775] rcu_init+0x6aa/0x724
> [ 0.398779] start_kernel+0x220/0x4a2
> [ 0.398780] ? copy_bootdata+0x12/0xac
> [ 0.398782] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
Thank you both, and I will remove this from my testing queue.
As Joel says, this is called at various points in the boot sequence, not
all of which are far enough along to support spawning kthreads.
The real question here is "What types of bugs are we trying to defend
against?" But keeping in mind existing diagnostics. For example, are
there any kthreads for which a persistent failure to spawn would not
emit any error message. My belief is that any such persistent failure
would result in either an in-kernel diagnostic or an rcutorture failure,
but I might well be missing something.
Thoughts? Or, more to the point, tests demonstrating silence in face
of such a persistent failure?
Thanx, Paul
> > Thanks,
> > Byungchul
> >
> > ---8<---
> > From 58a33a85c70f82c406319b4752af95cf6ceb73a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:08:26 +0900
> > Subject: [RFC] rcu: Warn that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned
> >
> > In case that rcu ktheads cannot be spawned due to
> > !rcu_scheduler_fully_active, it'd be better to anounce it.
> >
> > While at it, because the return value of rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread()
> > is not used any longer, changed the return type from int to void.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 1102765..7d74193 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@ static void rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > * already exist. We only create this kthread for preemptible RCU.
> > * Returns zero if all is well, a negated errno otherwise.
> > */
> > -static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > +static void rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > {
> > int rnp_index = rnp - rcu_get_root();
> > unsigned long flags;
> > @@ -1139,25 +1139,24 @@ static int rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > struct task_struct *t;
> >
> > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU))
> > - return 0;
> > + return;
> >
> > - if (!rcu_scheduler_fully_active || rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > - return 0;
> > + if (rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) == 0)
> > + return;
> >
> > rcu_state.boost = 1;
> > if (rnp->boost_kthread_task != NULL)
> > - return 0;
> > + return;
> > t = kthread_create(rcu_boost_kthread, (void *)rnp,
> > "rcub/%d", rnp_index);
> > if (IS_ERR(t))
> > - return PTR_ERR(t);
> > + return;
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > rnp->boost_kthread_task = t;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > sp.sched_priority = kthread_prio;
> > sched_setscheduler_nocheck(t, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
> > wake_up_process(t); /* get to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE quickly. */
> > - return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static void rcu_cpu_kthread_setup(unsigned int cpu)
> > @@ -1264,8 +1263,12 @@ static void __init rcu_spawn_boost_kthreads(void)
> > per_cpu(rcu_data.rcu_cpu_has_work, cpu) = 0;
> > if (WARN_ONCE(smpboot_register_percpu_thread(&rcu_cpu_thread_spec), "%s: Could not start rcub kthread, OOM is now expected behavior\n", __func__))
> > return;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp)
> > - (void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > + rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > }
> >
> > static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > @@ -1273,9 +1276,11 @@ static void rcu_prepare_kthreads(int cpu)
> > struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
> >
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > /* Fire up the incoming CPU's kthread and leaf rcu_node kthread. */
> > - if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > - (void)rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > + rcu_spawn_one_boost_kthread(rnp);
> > }
> >
> > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
> > @@ -2198,8 +2203,10 @@ static void rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > */
> > static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
> > {
> > - if (rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
> > - rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > + if (WARN_ON(!rcu_scheduler_fully_active))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rcu_spawn_one_nocb_kthread(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists