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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 09:01:07 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        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 Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 04:00:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 05:23:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 12:24:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2019-07-01 11:42:15 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure if smp_send_reschedule() can be used as self-IPI, some
> > > > hardware doesn't particularly like that IIRC. That is, hardware might
> > > > only have interfaces to IPI _other_ CPUs, but not self.
> > > > 
> > > > The normal scheduler code takes care to not call smp_send_reschedule()
> > > > to self.
> > > 
> > > and irq_work:
> > >   471ba0e686cb1 ("irq_work: Do not raise an IPI when queueing work on the local CPU")
> > 
> > OK, so it looks like I will need to use something else.  But thank you
> > for calling my attention to this commit.
> 
> I think that commit is worded slight confusing -- sorry I should've paid
> more attention.
> 
> irq_work _does_ work locally, and arch_irq_work_raise() must self-IPI,
> otherwise everything is horribly broken.
> 
> But what happened, was that irq_work_queue() and irq_work_queue_on(.cpu
> = smp_processor_id()) wasn't using the same code, and the latter would
> try to self-IPI through arch_send_call_function_single_ipi().
> 
> Nick fixed that so that irq_work_queue() and irq_work_queue_on(.cpu =
> smp_processor_id() now both use arch_raise_irq_work() and remote stuff
> uses arch_send_call_function_single_ipi().

OK, thank you for looking into this!

I therefore continue relying on IRQ work.  Should there be problems with
kernels not supporting IRQ work, and if there is a legitimate reason
why they should not support IRQ work, I can look into things like timers
for those kernels.

							Thanx, Paul