linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock

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: <20200723080349.GY4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:03:49 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page

On Wed 22-07-20 11:29:20, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:33 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > More likely, it's actually *caused* by that commit 11a19c7b099f, and
> > what might be happening is that other CPU's are just adding new
> > waiters to the list *while* we're waking things up, because somebody
> > else already got the page lock again.
> >
> > Humor me.. Does something like this work instead?
> 
> I went back and looked at this, because it bothered me.

Thanks for pursuing this. I have learned that the affected system is in
fact a production machine which doesn't seem to have any downtime window
planned soon. Moreover the issue is not always reproducible. So I cannot
guarantee I can have this or other patches tested soon which is really
unfortunate.

> And I'm no longer convinced it can possibly make a difference.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because __wake_up_locked_key_bookmark() just calls __wake_up_common(),
> and that one checks the return value of the wakeup function:
> 
>                 ret = curr->func(curr, mode, wake_flags, key);
>                 if (ret < 0)
>                         break;
> 
> and will not add the bookmark back to the list if this triggers.
> 
> And the wakeup function does that same "stop walking" thing:
> 
>         if (test_bit(key->bit_nr, &key->page->flags))
>                 return -1;
> 
> So if somebody else took the page lock, I think we should already have
> stopped walking the list.

Right! I didn't bother to look at the wakeup callback so have missed
this. For completeness this behavior is there since 3510ca20ece01 which
we have in our 4.12 based kernel as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs