| 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: <20201013193025.GA2424@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:30:25 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:26:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 01:25:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:44:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:34:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > It is certainly an accident waiting to happen. Would something like
> > > > > the following make sense?
> > > >
> > > > Sadly no.
> > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > index bfd38f2..52a63bc 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -4067,6 +4067,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > >
> > > > > rnp = rdp->mynode;
> > > > > mask = rdp->grpmask;
> > > > > + lockdep_off();
> > > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);
> > > > > newcpu = !(rnp->expmaskinitnext & mask);
> > > > > @@ -4086,6 +4087,7 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > > }
> > > > > + lockdep_on();
> > > > > smp_mb(); /* Ensure RCU read-side usage follows above initialization. */
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This will just shut it up, but will not fix the actual problem of that
> > > > spin-lock ending up in trace_lock_acquire() which relies on RCU which
> > > > isn't looking.
> > > >
> > > > What we need here is to supress tracing not lockdep. Let me consider.
> > >
> > > We appear to have a similar problem with rcu_report_dead(), it's
> > > raw_spin_unlock()s can end up in trace_lock_release() while we just
> > > killed RCU.
> >
> > So we can deal with the explicit trace_*() calls like the below, but I
> > really don't like it much. It also doesn't help with function tracing.
> > This is really early/late in the hotplug cycle and should be considered
> > entry, we shouldn't be tracing anything here.
> >
> > Paul, would it be possible to use a scheme similar to IRQ/NMI for
> > hotplug? That seems to mostly rely on atomic ops, not locks.
>
> The rest of the rcu_node tree and the various grace-period/hotplug races
> makes that question non-trivial. I will look into it, but I have no
> reason for optimism.
>
> But there is only one way to find out... ;-)
The aforementioned races get really ugly really fast. So I do not
believe that a lockless approach is a strategy to win here.
But why not use something sort of like a sequence counter, but adapted
for local on-CPU use? This should quiet the diagnostics for the full
time that RCU needs its locks. Untested patch below.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 1d42909..5b06886 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -1152,13 +1152,15 @@ bool rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online(void)
struct rcu_data *rdp;
struct rcu_node *rnp;
bool ret = false;
+ unsigned long seq;
if (in_nmi() || !rcu_scheduler_fully_active)
return true;
preempt_disable_notrace();
rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
rnp = rdp->mynode;
- if (rdp->grpmask & rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp))
+ seq = READ_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq) & ~0x1;
+ if (rdp->grpmask & rcu_rnp_online_cpus(rnp) || seq != READ_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq))
ret = true;
preempt_enable_notrace();
return ret;
@@ -4065,6 +4067,8 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
rnp = rdp->mynode;
mask = rdp->grpmask;
+ WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1));
raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext | mask);
newcpu = !(rnp->expmaskinitnext & mask);
@@ -4084,6 +4088,8 @@ void rcu_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu)
} else {
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
}
+ WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1);
smp_mb(); /* Ensure RCU read-side usage follows above initialization. */
}
@@ -4111,6 +4117,8 @@ void rcu_report_dead(unsigned int cpu)
/* Remove outgoing CPU from mask in the leaf rcu_node structure. */
mask = rdp->grpmask;
+ WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1));
raw_spin_lock(&rcu_state.ofl_lock);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); /* Enforce GP memory-order guarantee. */
rdp->rcu_ofl_gp_seq = READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_seq);
@@ -4123,6 +4131,8 @@ void rcu_report_dead(unsigned int cpu)
WRITE_ONCE(rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->qsmaskinitnext & ~mask);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
raw_spin_unlock(&rcu_state.ofl_lock);
+ WRITE_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq, rnp->ofl_seq + 1);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->ofl_seq & 0x1);
rdp->cpu_started = false;
}
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index 805c9eb..7d802b6 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ struct rcu_node {
/* beginning of each grace period. */
unsigned long qsmaskinitnext;
/* Online CPUs for next grace period. */
+ unsigned long ofl_seq; /* CPU-hotplug operation sequence count. */
unsigned long expmask; /* CPUs or groups that need to check in */
/* to allow the current expedited GP */
/* to complete. */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists