linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: fix an imbalance in domain_remove

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: <C9061BAA-DF55-402D-967C-33CF332B10EE@lca.pw>
Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 13:06:20 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Ryan Chen <yu.chen.surf@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, sboyd@...nel.org,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, tj@...nel.org,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: fix an imbalance in domain_remove_cpu



> On Dec 10, 2019, at 2:55 AM, Ryan Chen <yu.chen.surf@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Qian,
> 
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 12:14 PM Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
>> 
>> domain_add_cpu() calls domain_setup_mon_state() only when r->mon_capable
>> is true where it will initialize d->mbm_over. However,
>> domain_remove_cpu() calls cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over) without
>> checking r->mon_capable. Hence, it triggers a debugobjects warning when
>> offlining CPUs because those timer debugobjects are never initialized.
>> 
> Could you elaborate a little more on the failure symptom?
> If I understand correctly, the error you described was  due to
> r->mon_capable set to false while is_mbm_enabled() returns true?
> Which means on this platform rdt_mon_features is non zero?
> And in get_rdt_mon_resources() it will invoke rdt_get_mon_l3_config(),
> however the only possible failure to do not set r->mon_capable is that it
> failed in dom_data_init() due to kcalloc() failure?  Then the logic in
> get_rdt_resources() is that it will ignore the return error if rdt allocate
> feature is supported on this platform?  If this is the case, the r->mon_capable
> is not an indicator for whether the overflow thread has been created, right?
> Can we simply remove the check of r->mon_capable in domain_add_cpu() and
> invoke  domain_setup_mon_state() directly?

Actually,

domain_add_cpu r->name = L3, r->alloc_capable = 1, r->mon_capable = 1
domain_add_cpu r->name = L3DATA, r->alloc_capable = 1, r->mon_capable = 0
domain_add_cpu r->name = L3CODE, r->alloc_capable = 1, r->mon_capable = 0

rdt_get_mon_l3_config() will only set r->mon_capable = 1 for L3.

>> ODEBUG: assert_init not available (active state 0) object type:
>> timer_list hint: 0x0
>> WARNING: CPU: 143 PID: 789 at lib/debugobjects.c:484
>> debug_print_object+0xfe/0x140
>> Hardware name: HP Synergy 680 Gen9/Synergy 680 Gen9 Compute Module, BIOS
>> I40 05/23/2018
>> RIP: 0010:debug_print_object+0xfe/0x140
>> Call Trace:
>> debug_object_assert_init+0x1f5/0x240
>> del_timer+0x6f/0xf0
>> try_to_grab_pending+0x42/0x3c0
>> cancel_delayed_work+0x7d/0x150
>> resctrl_offline_cpu+0x3c0/0x520
>> cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x197/0x1120
>> cpuhp_thread_fun+0x252/0x2f0
>> smpboot_thread_fn+0x255/0x440
>> kthread+0x1e6/0x210
>> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>> 
>> Fixes: e33026831bdb ("x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Handle counter overflow")
>> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
>> index 03eb90d00af0..89049b343c7a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
>> @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void domain_remove_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
>>                if (static_branch_unlikely(&rdt_mon_enable_key))
>>                        rmdir_mondata_subdir_allrdtgrp(r, d->id);
>>                list_del(&d->list);
>> -               if (is_mbm_enabled())
>> +               if (r->mon_capable && is_mbm_enabled())
>>                        cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over);
> Humm, it looks like there are two places within this function
> invoked cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over),
> why not adding the check for both of them?

Here it only check L3, so it will skip correctly for L3DATA and L3CODE
to not call cancel_delayed_work(). Recalled the above that only L3 will
have r->capable set.

if (r == &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3]) {
	if (is_mbm_enabled() && cpu == d->mbm_work_cpu) {			
		cancel_delayed_work(&d->mbm_over);

Hence, r->mon_capable check seems redundant here.