| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191119193827.GB2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:38:27 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gkohli@...eaurora.org, prsood@...eaurora.org,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:17:07AM +0000, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> For the tasks waiting in exp_wq inside exp_funnel_lock(),
> there is a chance that they might be indefinitely blocked
> in below scenario:
>
> 1. There is a task waiting on exp sequence 0b'100' inside
> exp_funnel_lock(). This task blocks at wq index 1.
>
> synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> s = 0b'100'
> exp_funnel_lock()
> wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]
>
> 2. The expedited grace period (which above task blocks for)
> completes and task (task1) holding exp_mutex queues
> worker and schedules out.
>
> synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> s = 0b'100'
> queue_work(rcu_gp_wq, &rew.rew_work)
> wake_up_worker()
> schedule()
>
> 3. kworker A picks up the queued work and completes the exp gp
> sequence and then blocks on exp_wake_mutex, which is held
> by another kworker, which is doing wakeups for expedited_sequence
> 0.
>
> rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence is incremented
> // to 0b'100'
> mutex_lock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex)
>
> 4. task1 does not enter wait queue, as sync_exp_work_done() returns true,
> and releases exp_mutex.
>
> wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3],
> sync_exp_work_done(rsp, s));
> mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex);
>
> 5. Next exp GP completes, and sequence number is incremented:
>
> rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence = 0b'200'
>
> 6. kworker A acquires exp_wake_mutex. As it uses current
> expedited_sequence, it wakes up workers from wrong wait queue
> index - it should have worken wait queue corresponding to
> 0b'100' sequence, but wakes up the ones for 0b'200' sequence.
> This results in task at step 1 indefinitely blocked.
>
> rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rsp->expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
>
> This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend, as scsi
> device was stuck in _synchronize_rcu_expedited().
>
> schedule()
> synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> synchronize_rcu()
> scsi_device_quiesce()
> scsi_bus_suspend()
> dpm_run_callback()
> __device_suspend()
>
> Fix this by using the correct exp sequence number, the one which
> owner of the exp_mutex initiated and passed to kworker,
> to index the wait queue, inside rcu_exp_wait_wake().
>
> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Queued, thank you!
I reworked the commit message to make it easier to follow the sequence
of events. Please see below and let me know if I messed anything up.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit d887fd2a66861f51ed93b5dde894b9646a5569dd
Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Date: Tue Nov 19 03:17:07 2019 +0000
rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters
Tasks waiting within exp_funnel_lock() for an expedited grace period to
elapse can be starved due to the following sequence of events:
1. Tasks A and B both attempt to start an expedited grace
period at about the same time. This grace period will have
completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100', for example, when the
initial value of this counter is zero. Task A wins, and thus
does the actual work of starting the grace period, including
acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the
counter to 0b'0001'.
2. Because task B lost the race to start the grace period, it
waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'0100' inside of
exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[1] field, keeping in mind that the
end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'0100')
is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field.
3. Task C attempts to start another expedited grace period,
but blocks on ->exp_mutex, which is still held by Task A.
4. The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that
->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'. A kworker task
therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex
and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period.
5. One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A. Task A
therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex,
which allows Task C to start the next expedited grace period,
which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'0101'.
6. Task C's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four
bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now
become 0b'1000'.
7. The kworker task from step 4 above continues its wakeups.
Unfortunately, the wake_up_all() refetches the rcu_state
structure's .expedited_sequence field:
wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, which is unfortunate given that
Task B is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[1].
On a busy system, no harm is done (or at least no permanent harm is done).
Some later expedited grace period will redo the wakeup. But on a quiet
system, such as many embedded systems, it might be a good long time before
there was another expedited grace period. On such embedded systems,
this situation could therefore result in a system hang.
This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend (which
usually qualifies as a quiet time) due to a SCSI device being stuck in
_synchronize_rcu_expedited(), with the following stack trace:
schedule()
synchronize_rcu_expedited()
synchronize_rcu()
scsi_device_quiesce()
scsi_bus_suspend()
dpm_run_callback()
__device_suspend()
This commit therefore prevents such delays, timeouts, and hangs by
making rcu_exp_wait_wake() use its "s" argument consistently instead of
refetching from rcu_state.expedited_sequence.
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index 6ce598d..4433d00a 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(unsigned long s)
spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock);
}
smp_mb(); /* All above changes before wakeup. */
- wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
+ wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]);
}
trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("endwake"));
mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists