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  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:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 18:02:06 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc:     Marco Elver <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        Anders Roxell <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Alexander Potapenko <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        Jann Horn <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linux-MM <>,
        kasan-dev <>,,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Tejun Heo <>,
        Lai Jiangshan <>,
Subject: Re: linux-next: stall warnings and deadlock on Arm64 (was: [PATCH]
 kfence: Avoid stalling...)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 09:38:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 03:22:00PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:39:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 03:19:28PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > > I found that disabling ftrace for some of kernel/rcu (see below) solved
> > > > the stalls (and any mention of deadlocks as a side-effect I assume),
> > > > resulting in successful boot.
> > > > 
> > > > Does that provide any additional clues? I tried to narrow it down to 1-2
> > > > files, but that doesn't seem to work.
> > > 
> > > There were similar issues during the x86/entry work.  Are the ARM guys
> > > doing arm64/entry work now?
> > 
> > I'm currently looking at it. I had been trying to shift things to C for
> > a while, and right now I'm trying to fix the lockdep state tracking,
> > which is requiring untangling lockdep/rcu/tracing.
> > 
> > The main issue I see remaining atm is that we don't save/restore the
> > lockdep state over exceptions taken from kernel to kernel. That could
> > result in lockdep thinking IRQs are disabled when they're actually
> > enabled (because code in the nested context might do a save/restore
> > while IRQs are disabled, then return to a context where IRQs are
> > enabled), but AFAICT shouldn't result in the inverse in most cases since
> > the non-NMI handlers all call lockdep_hardirqs_disabled().
> > 
> > I'm at a loss to explaim the rcu vs ftrace bits, so if you have any
> > pointers to the issuies ween with the x86 rework that'd be quite handy.
> There were several over a number of months.  I especially recall issues
> with the direct-from-idle execution of smp_call_function*() handlers,
> and also with some of the special cases in the entry code, for example,
> reentering the kernel from the kernel.  This latter could cause RCU to
> not be watching when it should have been or vice versa.

Ah; those are precisely the cases I'm currently fixing, so if we're
lucky this is an indirect result of one of those rather than a novel
source of pain...

> I would of course be most aware of the issues that impinged on RCU
> and that were located by rcutorture.  This is actually not hard to run,
> especially if the ARM bits in the scripting have managed to avoid bitrot.
> The "modprobe rcutorture" approach has fewer dependencies.  Either way:
> and later posts.

That is a very good idea. I'd been relying on Syzkaller to tickle the
issue, but the torture infrastructure is a much better fit for this
problem. I hadn't realise how comprehensive the scripting was, thanks
for this!

I'll see about giving that a go once I have the irq-from-idle cases
sorted, as those are very obviously broken if you hack
trace_hardirqs_{on,off}() to check that RCU is watching.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists