linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs

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: <20190627155506.GU26519@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:55:06 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:30:31AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:34:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:24:36 -0400
> > Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > What am I missing here?  
> > > 
> > > This issue I think is
> > > 
> > > (in normal process context)
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(rq_lock); // which disables both preemption and interrupt
> > > 			   // but this was done in normal process context,
> > > 			   // not from IRQ handler
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > >           <---------- IPI comes in and sets exp_hint
> > 
> > How would an IPI come in here with interrupts disabled?
> > 
> > -- Steve
> 
> This is true, could it be rcu_read_unlock_special() got called for some
> *other* reason other than the IPI then?
> 
> Per Sebastian's stack trace of the recursive lock scenario, it is happening
> during cpu_acct_charge() which is called with the rq_lock held. 
> 
> The only other reasons I know off to call rcu_read_unlock_special() are if
> 1. the tick indicated that the CPU has to report a QS
> 2. an IPI in the middle of the reader section for expedited GPs
> 3. preemption in the middle of a preemptible RCU reader section

4. Some previous reader section was IPIed or preempted, but either
   interrupts, softirqs, or preemption was disabled across the
   rcu_read_unlock() of that previous reader section.

I -think- that this is what Sebastian is seeing.

							Thanx, Paul

> 1. and 2. are not possible because interrupts are disabled, that's why the
> wakeup_softirq even happened.
> 3. is not possible because we are holding rq_lock in the RCU reader section.
> 
> So I am at a bit of a loss how this can happen :-(
> 
> Spurious call to rcu_read_unlock_special() may be when it should not have
> been called?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> - Joel