linux-kernel - Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in ext4_write

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: <20190705191055.GT26519@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jul 2019 12:10:55 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        syzbot <syzbot+4bfbbf28a2e50ab07368@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eladr@...lanox.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in ext4_write_checks

On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 05:48:31PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:17 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:47 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More details about what is going on.  First, it requires root, because
> > > > one of that is required is using sched_setattr (which is enough to
> > > > shoot yourself in the foot):
> > > >
> > > > sched_setattr(0, {size=0, sched_policy=0x6 /* SCHED_??? */, sched_flags=0, sched_nice=0, sched_priority=0, sched_runtime=2251799813724439, sched_deadline=4611686018427453437, sched_period=0}, 0) = 0
> > > >
> > > > This is setting the scheduler policy to be SCHED_DEADLINE, with a
> > > > runtime parameter of 2251799.813724439 seconds (or 26 days) and a
> > > > deadline of 4611686018.427453437 seconds (or 146 *years*).  This means
> > > > a particular kernel thread can run for up to 26 **days** before it is
> > > > scheduled away, and if a kernel reads gets woken up or sent a signal,
> > > > no worries, it will wake up roughly seven times the interval that Rip
> > > > Van Winkle spent snoozing in a cave in the Catskill Mountains (in
> > > > Washington Irving's short story).
> > > >
> > > > We then kick off a half-dozen threads all running:
> > > >
> > > >    sendfile(fd, fd, &pos, 0x8080fffffffe);
> > > >
> > > > (and since count is a ridiculously large number, this gets cut down to):
> > > >
> > > >    sendfile(fd, fd, &pos, 2147479552);
> > > >
> > > > Is it any wonder that we are seeing RCU stalls?   :-)
> > >
> > > +Peter, Ingo for sched_setattr and +Paul for rcu
> > >
> > > First of all: is it a semi-intended result of a root (CAP_SYS_NICE)
> > > doing local DoS abusing sched_setattr? It would perfectly reasonable
> > > to starve other processes, but I am not sure about rcu. In the end the
> > > high prio process can use rcu itself, and then it will simply blow
> > > system memory by stalling rcu. So it seems that rcu stalls should not
> > > happen as a result of weird sched_setattr values. If that is the case,
> > > what needs to be fixed? sched_setattr? rcu? sendfile?
> >
> > Does the (untested, probably does not even build) patch shown below help?
> > This patch assumes that the kernel was built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> > And that I found all the tight loops on the do_sendfile() code path.
> 
> The config used when this happened is referenced from here:
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4bfbbf28a2e50ab07368
> and it contains:
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
> 
> So... what does this mean? The loop should have been preempted without
> the cond_resched() then, right?

Exactly, so although my patch might help for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, it won't
help in your scenario.  But looking at the dmesg from your URL above,
I see the following:

rcu: rcu_preempt kthread starved for 10549 jiffies! g8969 f0x2 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(5) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=0

And, prior to that:

rcu: All QSes seen, last rcu_preempt kthread activity 10503 (4295056736-4295046233), jiffies_till_next_fqs=1, root ->qsmask 0x0

In other words, the grace period has finished, but RCU's grace-period
kthread hasn't gotten a chance to run, and thus hasn't marked it as
completed.  The standard workaround is to set the rcutree.kthread_prio
kernel boot parameter to a comfortably high real-time priority.

At least assuming that syzkaller isn't setting the scheduling priority
of random CPU-bound tasks to RT priority 99 or some such.  ;-)

Does that work for you?

							Thanx, Paul

> > > If this is semi-intended, the only option I see is to disable
> > > something in syzkaller: sched_setattr entirely, or drop CAP_SYS_NICE,
> > > or ...? Any preference either way?
> >
> > Long-running tight loops in the kernel really should contain
> > cond_resched() or better.
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
> > index 25212dcca2df..50aa3286764a 100644
> > --- a/fs/splice.c
> > +++ b/fs/splice.c
> > @@ -985,6 +985,7 @@ ssize_t splice_direct_to_actor(struct file *in, struct splice_desc *sd,
> >                         sd->pos = prev_pos + ret;
> >                         goto out_release;
> >                 }
> > +               cond_resched();
> >         }
> >
> >  done:
> >
>