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: <20190628074350.GA11214@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:43:50 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <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>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:31:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:38PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think the fix should be to prevent the wake-up not based on whether we
> > > > > are
> > > > > in hard/soft-interrupt mode but that we are doing the rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > > from
> > > > > a scheduler path (if we can detect that)
> > > > 
> > > > Or just don't do the wakeup at all, if it comes to that.  I don't know
> > > > of any way to determine whether rcu_read_unlock() is being called from
> > > > the scheduler, but it has been some time since I asked Peter Zijlstra
> > > > about that.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, unconditionally refusing to do the wakeup might not be happy
> > > > thing for NO_HZ_FULL kernels that don't implement IRQ work.
> > > 
> > > Couldn't smp_send_reschedule() be used instead?
> > 
> > Good point.  If current -rcu doesn't fix things for Sebastian's case,
> > that would be well worth looking at.  But there must be some reason
> > why Peter Zijlstra didn't suggest it when he instead suggested using
> > the IRQ work approach.
> > 
> > Peter, thoughts?
> 

+cc kernel-team@....com
(I'm sorry for more noise on the thread.)

> Hello,
> 
> Isn't the following scenario possible?
> 
> The original code
> -----------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> 	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> 		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> 			WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> 			rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> 		barrier();  /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> 		t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
> 
> The reordered code by machine
> -----------------------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> 	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> 		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> 		t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!!
> 			WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> 			rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> 		barrier();  /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> 
> An interrupt happens
> --------------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> 	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> 		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> 		t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!!
> <--- Handle an (any) irq
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	/* This call should be skipped */
> 	rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> 			WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> 			rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> 		barrier();  /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> 
> We don't have to handle the special thing twice like this which is one
> reason to cause the problem even though another problem is of course to
> call ttwu w/o being aware it's within a context holding pi lock.
> 
> Apart from the discussion about how to avoid ttwu in an improper
> condition, I think the following is necessary. I may have something
> missing. It would be appreciated if you let me know in case I'm wrong.
> 
> Anyway, logically I think we should prevent reordering between
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting and t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint not
> only by compiler but also by machine like the below.
> 
> Do I miss something?
> 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 3c8444e..9b137f1 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -412,7 +412,13 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
>  		barrier();  /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
>  		if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
>  			rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> -		barrier();  /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> +		/*
> +		 * Prevent reordering between clearing
> +		 * t->rcu_reak_unlock_special in
> +		 * rcu_read_unlock_special() and the following
> +		 * assignment to t->rcu_read_lock_nesting.
> +		 */
> +		smp_wmb();
>  		t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
>  	}
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
> 
>