linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 29/35] mm: slub: Move flush_cpu_slab() invocations __free

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:   Mon, 9 Aug 2021 22:08:44 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 29/35] mm: slub: Move flush_cpu_slab() invocations
 __free_slab() invocations out of IRQ context

On 8/9/2021 8:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 09:41 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/2021 11:19 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(flush_lock);
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct slub_flush_work, slub_flush);
>>> +
>>>  static void flush_all(struct kmem_cache *s)
>>>  {
>>> -       on_each_cpu_cond(has_cpu_slab, flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>>> +       struct slub_flush_work *sfw;
>>> +       unsigned int cpu;
>>> +
>>> +       mutex_lock(&flush_lock);
>>
>> Vlastimil, taking the lock here could trigger a warning during memory
>> offline/online due to the locking order:
>>
>> slab_mutex -> flush_lock
> 
> Bugger.  That chain ending with cpu_hotplug_lock makes slub_cpu_dead()
> taking slab_mutex a non-starter for cpu hotplug as well.  It's
> established early by kernel_init_freeable()..kmem_cache_destroy() as
> well as by slab_mem_going_offline_callback().

I suck at reading the lockdep splats, so I don't see yet how the "existing
reverse order" occurs - I do understand the order in the "lsbug".
What I also wonder is why didn't this occur also in the older RT trees with this
patch. I did change the order of locks in flush_all() to take flush_lock first
and cpus_read_lock() second, as Cyrill Gorcunov suggested. Would the original
order prevent this? Or we would fail anyway because we already took
cpus_read_lock() in offline_pages() and now are taking it again - do these nest
or not?