[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKZHV7TIZ0QALfWd@alley>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 13:26:15 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Martin Liu <liumartin@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, minchan@...gle.com, www@...gle.com,
davidchao@...gle.com, jenhaochen@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Fix kthread_mod_delayed_work vs
kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync race
On Thu 2021-05-13 14:54:57, Martin Liu wrote:
> We encountered a system hang issue while doing the tests. The callstack
> is as following
>
> schedule+0x80/0x100
> schedule_timeout+0x48/0x138
> wait_for_common+0xa4/0x134
> wait_for_completion+0x1c/0x2c
> kthread_flush_work+0x114/0x1cc
> kthread_cancel_work_sync.llvm.16514401384283632983+0xe8/0x144
> kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x18/0x2c
> xxxx_pm_notify+0xb0/0xd8
> blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x80/0x194
> pm_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x28/0x4c
> suspend_prepare+0x40/0x260
> enter_state+0x80/0x3f4
> pm_suspend+0x60/0xdc
> state_store+0x108/0x144
> kobj_attr_store+0x38/0x88
> sysfs_kf_write+0x64/0xc0
> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x108/0x1d0
> vfs_write+0x2f4/0x368
> ksys_write+0x7c/0xec
>
> When we started investigating, we found race between
> kthread_mod_delayed_work vs kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync. The race's
> result could be simply reproduced as a kthread_mod_delayed_work with
> a following kthread_flush_work call.
>
> Thing is we release kthread_mod_delayed_work kspin_lock in
> __kthread_cancel_work so it opens a race window for
> kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync to change the canceling count used to
> prevent dwork from being requeued before calling kthread_flush_work.
> However, we don't check the canceling count after returning from
> __kthread_cancel_work and then insert the dwork to the worker. It
> results the following kthread_flush_work inserts flush work to dwork's
> tail which is at worker's dealyed_work_list. Therefore, flush work will
> never get moved to the worker's work_list to be executed. Finally,
> kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync will NOT be able to get completed and
> wait forever. The code sequence diagram is as following
>
> Thread A Thread B
> kthread_mod_delayed_work
> spin_lock
> __kthread_cancel_work
> canceling = 1
> spin_unlock
> kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync
> spin_lock
> kthread_cancel_work
> canceling = 2
> spin_unlock
> del_timer_sync
> spin_lock
> canceling = 1 // canceling count gets update in ThreadB before
> queue_delayed_work // dwork is put into the woker’s dealyed_work_list
> without checking the canceling count
> spin_unlock
> kthread_flush_work
> spin_lock
> Insert flush work // at the tail of the
> dwork which is at
> the worker’s
> dealyed_work_list
> spin_unlock
> wait_for_completion // Thread B stuck here as
> flush work will never
> get executed
>
> The canceling count could change in __kthread_cancel_work as the spinlock
> get released and regained in between, let's check the count again before
> we queue the delayed work to avoid the race.
>
> Fixes: 37be45d49dec2 ("kthread: allow to cancel kthread work")
> Tested-by: David Chao <davidchao@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Liu <liumartin@...gle.com>
Great catch! The patch makes perfect sense.
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Andrew, could you please queue it via -mm tree?
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I am sorry for the late review. I was somehow busy last week
it it has fallen too low in the mailbox :-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists