linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/10] softirq: Don't try waking ksoftirqd before it has been spawned

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: <20210304000019.22459-6-paulmck@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  3 Mar 2021 16:00:15 -0800
From:   paulmck@...nel.org
To:     rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/10] softirq: Don't try waking ksoftirqd before it has been spawned

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>

If there is heavy softirq activity, the softirq system will attempt
to awaken ksoftirqd and will stop the traditional back-of-interrupt
softirq processing.  This is all well and good, but only if the
ksoftirqd kthreads already exist, which is not the case during early
boot, in which case the system hangs.

One reproducer is as follows:

tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 2 --configs "TREE03" --kconfig "CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE=y CONFIG_HZ_PERIODIC=n" --bootargs "threadirqs=1" --trust-make

This commit therefore adds a couple of existence checks for ksoftirqd
and forces back-of-interrupt softirq processing when ksoftirqd does not
yet exist.  With this change, the above test passes.

Reported-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Reported-by: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
[ paulmck: Remove unneeded check per Sebastian Siewior feedback. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/softirq.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
index 9908ec4a..bad14ca 100644
--- a/kernel/softirq.c
+++ b/kernel/softirq.c
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
 	if (ksoftirqd_running(local_softirq_pending()))
 		return;
 
-	if (!force_irqthreads) {
+	if (!force_irqthreads || !__this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd)) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
 		/*
 		 * We can safely execute softirq on the current stack if
-- 
2.9.5