| 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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:10:42 +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 04:43:50PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> 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 */
I was confused it was a LOAD access. The example should be changed a bit.
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);
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
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);
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
<--- 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);
Now that I re-made the example, I'm afraid it'd be no problem because
anyway it'd be within a cpu so it can see inside of the store-buffer of
the cpu.
I'm sorry. Please ignore my suggestion here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists