linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations

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]

Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:56:21 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without
 allocations

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...] 
> But it would be good to get the kcompactd() people to look at this (not
> immediately seeing who they are in MAINTAINERS).  Perhaps preemption is
> disabled somehow and I am failing to see it.
> 
> Failing that, maybe someone knows of a way to check for overly long
> timeout handlers.

I think I figured out one piece of the puzzle. Bisection keeps pointing
me at some -rcu merge commit, which kept throwing me off. Nor did it
help that reproduction is a bit flaky. However, I think there are 2
independent problems, but the manifestation of 1 problem triggers the
2nd problem:

1. problem: slowed forward progress (workqueue lockup / RCU stall reports)

2. problem: DEADLOCK which causes complete system lockup

	| ...
	|        CPU0
	|        ----
	|   lock(rcu_node_0);
	|   <Interrupt>
	|     lock(rcu_node_0);
	| 
	|  *** DEADLOCK ***
	| 
	| 1 lock held by event_benchmark/105:
	|  #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: print_other_cpu_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:493 [inline]
	|  #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: check_cpu_stall kernel/rcu/tree_stall.h:652 [inline]
	|  #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: rcu_pending kernel/rcu/tree.c:3752 [inline]
	|  #0: ffffbb6e0b804458 (rcu_node_0){?.-.}-{2:2}, at: rcu_sched_clock_irq+0x428/0xd40 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2581
	| ...

Problem 2 can with reasonable confidence (5 trials) be fixed by reverting:

	rcu: Don't invoke try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled

At which point the system always boots to user space -- albeit with a
bunch of warnings still (attached). The supposed "good" version doesn't
end up with all those warnings deterministically, so I couldn't say if
the warnings are expected due to recent changes or not (Arm64 QEMU
emulation, 1 CPU, and lots of debugging tools on).

Does any of that make sense?

Thanks,
-- Marco

View attachment "log" of type "text/plain" (8805 bytes)