linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.7 170/179] parisc: Add atomic64_set_release() define to avoid CPU soft lockups

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: <20200727134940.941331008@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 16:05:45 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Dave Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Subject: [PATCH 5.7 170/179] parisc: Add atomic64_set_release() define to avoid CPU soft lockups

From: John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>

commit be6577af0cef934ccb036445314072e8cb9217b9 upstream.

Stalls are quite frequent with recent kernels. I enabled
CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR and I caught the following stall:

watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [cc1:22803]
CPU: 0 PID: 22803 Comm: cc1 Not tainted 5.6.17+ #3
Hardware name: 9000/800/rp3440
 IAOQ[0]: d_alloc_parallel+0x384/0x688
 IAOQ[1]: d_alloc_parallel+0x388/0x688
 RP(r2): d_alloc_parallel+0x134/0x688
Backtrace:
 [<000000004036974c>] __lookup_slow+0xa4/0x200
 [<0000000040369fc8>] walk_component+0x288/0x458
 [<000000004036a9a0>] path_lookupat+0x88/0x198
 [<000000004036e748>] filename_lookup+0xa0/0x168
 [<000000004036e95c>] user_path_at_empty+0x64/0x80
 [<000000004035d93c>] vfs_statx+0x104/0x158
 [<000000004035dfcc>] __do_sys_lstat64+0x44/0x80
 [<000000004035e5a0>] sys_lstat64+0x20/0x38
 [<0000000040180054>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x14

The code was stuck in this loop in d_alloc_parallel:

    4037d414:   0e 00 10 dc     ldd 0(r16),ret0
    4037d418:   c7 fc 5f ed     bb,< ret0,1f,4037d414 <d_alloc_parallel+0x384>
    4037d41c:   08 00 02 40     nop

This is the inner loop of bit_spin_lock which is called by hlist_bl_unlock in
d_alloc_parallel:

static inline void bit_spin_lock(int bitnum, unsigned long *addr)
{
        /*
         * Assuming the lock is uncontended, this never enters
         * the body of the outer loop. If it is contended, then
         * within the inner loop a non-atomic test is used to
         * busywait with less bus contention for a good time to
         * attempt to acquire the lock bit.
         */
        preempt_disable();
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
        while (unlikely(test_and_set_bit_lock(bitnum, addr))) {
                preempt_enable();
                do {
                        cpu_relax();
                } while (test_bit(bitnum, addr));
                preempt_disable();
        }
#endif
        __acquire(bitlock);
}

After consideration, I realized that we must be losing bit unlocks.
Then, I noticed that we missed defining atomic64_set_release().
Adding this define fixes the stalls in bit operations.

Signed-off-by: Dave Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
+++ b/arch/parisc/include/asm/atomic.h
@@ -212,6 +212,8 @@ atomic64_set(atomic64_t *v, s64 i)
 	_atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(v, flags);
 }
 
+#define atomic64_set_release(v, i)	atomic64_set((v), (i))
+
 static __inline__ s64
 atomic64_read(const atomic64_t *v)
 {