| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e30a6464-708b-4946-65f0-c9a1e6bf2b35@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:04:59 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/semaphore: Use wake_q to wake up processes
outside lock critical section
On 2/10/22 05:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:32:54AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The following lockdep splat was observed:
>>
>> [ 9776.459819] ======================================================
>> [ 9776.459820] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> [ 9776.459821] 5.14.0-0.rc4.35.el9.x86_64+debug #1 Not tainted
>> [ 9776.459823] ------------------------------------------------------
>> [ 9776.459824] stress-ng/117708 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 9776.459825] ffffffff892d41d8 ((console_sem).lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: down_trylock+0x13/0x70
>>
>> [ 9776.459831] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 9776.459832] ffff888e005f6d18 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x27/0x130
>>
>> [ 9776.459837] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>> :
>> [ 9776.459857] -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}-{2:2}:
>> [ 9776.459860] __lock_acquire+0xb72/0x1870
>> [ 9776.459861] lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
>> [ 9776.459862] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x90
>> [ 9776.459863] try_to_wake_up+0x9d/0x1210
>> [ 9776.459864] up+0x7a/0xb0
>> [ 9776.459864] __up_console_sem+0x33/0x70
>> [ 9776.459865] console_unlock+0x3a1/0x5f0
>> [ 9776.459866] vprintk_emit+0x23b/0x2b0
>> [ 9776.459867] devkmsg_emit.constprop.0+0xab/0xdc
>> [ 9776.459868] devkmsg_write.cold+0x4e/0x78
>> [ 9776.459869] do_iter_readv_writev+0x343/0x690
>> [ 9776.459870] do_iter_write+0x123/0x340
>> [ 9776.459871] vfs_writev+0x19d/0x520
>> [ 9776.459871] do_writev+0x110/0x290
>> [ 9776.459872] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
>> [ 9776.459873] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>> :
>> [ 9776.459905] Chain exists of:
>> [ 9776.459906] (console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock
>>
>> [ 9776.459911] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> [ 9776.459913] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 9776.459914] ---- ----
>> [ 9776.459914] lock(&rq->__lock);
>> [ 9776.459917] lock(&p->pi_lock);
>> [ 9776.459919] lock(&rq->__lock);
>> [ 9776.459921] lock((console_sem).lock);
>>
>> [ 9776.459923] *** DEADLOCK ***
> Is this new due to the ongoing printk rewrite? Also the above doesn't
> actually describe the whole invesion, the one where console sem is taken
> inside pi_lock is missing.
I am sorry that I might have stripped out too much for the lockdep splat
to make it understandable. Below is the full lockdep splat:
[ 9776.459819] ======================================================
[ 9776.459820] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 9776.459821] 5.14.0-0.rc4.35.el9.x86_64+debug #1 Not tainted
[ 9776.459823] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 9776.459824] stress-ng/117708 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 9776.459825] ffffffff892d41d8 ((console_sem).lock){-...}-{2:2}, at:
down_trylock+0x13/0x70
[ 9776.459831] but task is already holding lock:
[ 9776.459832] ffff888e005f6d18 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x27/0x130
[ 9776.459837] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 9776.459839] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 9776.459841] -> #2 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}:
[ 9776.459845] __lock_acquire+0xb72/0x1870
[ 9776.459846] lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
[ 9776.459847] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x2f/0x80
[ 9776.459848] raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x27/0x130
[ 9776.459849] task_fork_fair+0x41/0x550
[ 9776.459850] sched_fork+0x40b/0xb60
[ 9776.459851] copy_process+0x160b/0x4db0
[ 9776.459852] kernel_clone+0xba/0x880
[ 9776.459853] kernel_thread+0xae/0xe0
[ 9776.459853] rest_init+0x22/0x2f0
[ 9776.459854] start_kernel+0x3cd/0x3eb
[ 9776.459855] secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xc2/0xcb
[ 9776.459857] -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}-{2:2}:
[ 9776.459860] __lock_acquire+0xb72/0x1870
[ 9776.459861] lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
[ 9776.459862] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x90
[ 9776.459863] try_to_wake_up+0x9d/0x1210
[ 9776.459864] up+0x7a/0xb0
[ 9776.459864] __up_console_sem+0x33/0x70
[ 9776.459865] console_unlock+0x3a1/0x5f0
[ 9776.459866] vprintk_emit+0x23b/0x2b0
[ 9776.459867] devkmsg_emit.constprop.0+0xab/0xdc
[ 9776.459868] devkmsg_write.cold+0x4e/0x78
[ 9776.459869] do_iter_readv_writev+0x343/0x690
[ 9776.459870] do_iter_write+0x123/0x340
[ 9776.459871] vfs_writev+0x19d/0x520
[ 9776.459871] do_writev+0x110/0x290
[ 9776.459872] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
[ 9776.459873] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 9776.459875] -> #0 ((console_sem).lock){-...}-{2:2}:
[ 9776.459878] check_prev_add+0x15e/0x20f0
[ 9776.459880] validate_chain+0xaba/0xde0
[ 9776.459880] __lock_acquire+0xb72/0x1870
[ 9776.459881] lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
[ 9776.459883] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x90
[ 9776.459884] down_trylock+0x13/0x70
[ 9776.459885] __down_trylock_console_sem+0x2a/0xb0
[ 9776.459886] console_trylock_spinning+0x13/0x1f0
[ 9776.459887] vprintk_emit+0x1e6/0x2b0
[ 9776.459888] printk+0xb2/0xe3
[ 9776.459889] __warn_printk+0x9b/0xf3
[ 9776.459889] update_rq_clock+0x3c2/0x780
[ 9776.459890] do_sched_rt_period_timer+0x19e/0x9a0
[ 9776.459891] sched_rt_period_timer+0x6b/0x150
[ 9776.459892] __run_hrtimer+0x27a/0xb20
[ 9776.459893] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x159/0x260
[ 9776.459894] hrtimer_interrupt+0x2cb/0x8f0
[ 9776.459895] __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x13e/0x540
[ 9776.459896] sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x90
[ 9776.459897] asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
[ 9776.459897] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3f/0x50
[ 9776.459898] __sched_setscheduler+0xb9a/0x2c80
[ 9776.459899] _sched_setscheduler.isra.0+0xd0/0x140
[ 9776.459900] do_sched_setscheduler+0x151/0x2b0
[ 9776.459901] __x64_sys_sched_setscheduler+0x76/0xa0
[ 9776.459902] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
[ 9776.459903] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 9776.459904] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 9776.459905] Chain exists of:
[ 9776.459906] (console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock
[ 9776.459911] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 9776.459913] CPU0 CPU1
[ 9776.459914] ---- ----
[ 9776.459914] lock(&rq->__lock);
[ 9776.459917] lock(&p->pi_lock);
[ 9776.459919] lock(&rq->__lock);
[ 9776.459921] lock((console_sem).lock);
[ 9776.459923] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 9776.459925] 2 locks held by stress-ng/117708:
[ 9776.459925] #0: ffffffff89403960 (&cpuset_rwsem){++++}-{0:0}, at:
__sched_setscheduler+0xe2f/0x2c80
[ 9776.459930] #1: ffff888e005f6d18 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x27/0x130
[ 9776.459935] stack backtrace:
[ 9776.459936] CPU: 95 PID: 117708 Comm: stress-ng Kdump: loaded Not
tainted 5.14.0-0.rc4.35.el9.x86_64+debug #1
[ 9776.459938] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E3/D3752, BIOS
PRIMEQUEST 2000 Series BIOS Version 01.51 06/29/2020
[ 9776.459939] Call Trace:
[ 9776.459940] <IRQ>
[ 9776.459940] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
[ 9776.459941] check_noncircular+0x26a/0x310
[ 9776.459942] ? print_circular_bug+0x1f0/0x1f0
[ 9776.459943] ? data_push_tail.part.0+0x92/0x3e0
[ 9776.459944] ? alloc_chain_hlocks+0x1de/0x530
[ 9776.459945] check_prev_add+0x15e/0x20f0
[ 9776.459946] validate_chain+0xaba/0xde0
[ 9776.459947] ? check_prev_add+0x20f0/0x20f0
[ 9776.459947] ? vsnprintf+0x852/0x15f0
[ 9776.459948] __lock_acquire+0xb72/0x1870
[ 9776.459949] lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
[ 9776.459950] ? down_trylock+0x13/0x70
[ 9776.459950] ? rcu_read_unlock+0x40/0x40
[ 9776.459951] ? validate_chain+0x14c/0xde0
[ 9776.459952] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x40/0x90
[ 9776.459953] ? down_trylock+0x13/0x70
[ 9776.459954] down_trylock+0x13/0x70
[ 9776.459954] ? vprintk_emit+0x1e6/0x2b0
[ 9776.459955] __down_trylock_console_sem+0x2a/0xb0
[ 9776.459956] console_trylock_spinning+0x13/0x1f0
[ 9776.459957] vprintk_emit+0x1e6/0x2b0
[ 9776.459958] printk+0xb2/0xe3
[ 9776.459958] ? record_print_text.cold+0x11/0x11
[ 9776.459959] ? lock_acquire+0x1ca/0x570
[ 9776.459960] __warn_printk+0x9b/0xf3
[ 9776.459961] ? __mmdrop.cold+0x33/0x33
[ 9776.459961] ? __lock_contended+0x910/0x910
[ 9776.459962] ? do_raw_spin_trylock+0xb5/0x180
[ 9776.459963] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x270/0x270
[ 9776.459964] update_rq_clock+0x3c2/0x780
[ 9776.459965] ? raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x27/0x130
[ 9776.459966] do_sched_rt_period_timer+0x19e/0x9a0
[ 9776.459967] ? sched_rt_period_timer+0x60/0x150
[ 9776.459968] sched_rt_period_timer+0x6b/0x150
[ 9776.459969] __run_hrtimer+0x27a/0xb20
[ 9776.459969] ? do_sched_rt_period_timer+0x9a0/0x9a0
[ 9776.459970] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x159/0x260
[ 9776.459971] ? __run_hrtimer+0xb20/0xb20
[ 9776.459972] ? recalibrate_cpu_khz+0x10/0x10
[ 9776.459973] ? ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0xe0/0x2c0
[ 9776.459974] hrtimer_interrupt+0x2cb/0x8f0
[ 9776.459976] __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x13e/0x540
[ 9776.459977] sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x90
[ 9776.459977] </IRQ>
[ 9776.459978] asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
[ 9776.459979] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3f/0x50
[ 9776.459981] Code: 10 e8 75 82 28 fe 48 89 ef e8 ed 15 29 fe 81 e3 00
02 00 00 75 17 9c 58 f6 c4 02 75 17 48 85 db 74 01 fb 65 ff 0d d1 c8 54
78 <5b> 5d c3 e8 a9 4f 4c fe eb e2 e8 62 7b fd ff eb e2 0f 1f 44 00 00
[ 9776.459983] RSP: 0018:ffffc90028e8fcb8 EFLAGS: 00000282
[ 9776.459984] RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: 0000000000000200 RCX:
1ffffffff15ba646
[ 9776.459985] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI:
ffffffff87ad28b7
[ 9776.459986] RBP: ffff888453ac8d28 R08: 0000000000000001 R09:
ffffffff8adc9fd7
[ 9776.459987] R10: fffffbfff15b93fa R11: 0000000000000001 R12:
0000000000000000
[ 9776.459988] R13: ffff888453ac8000 R14: ffff8c8ccbdf6d00 R15:
ffff8c8ccbdf77d0
[ 9776.459989] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x47/0x50
[ 9776.459990] __sched_setscheduler+0xb9a/0x2c80
[ 9776.459991] ? cpu_cgroup_fork+0x180/0x180
[ 9776.459992] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x15/0x170
[ 9776.459993] ? find_held_lock+0x33/0x110
[ 9776.459993] _sched_setscheduler.isra.0+0xd0/0x140
[ 9776.459994] ? lock_downgrade+0x110/0x110
[ 9776.459995] ? __ia32_sys_sched_setattr+0xa0/0xa0
[ 9776.459996] ? do_sched_setscheduler+0x111/0x2b0
[ 9776.459997] do_sched_setscheduler+0x151/0x2b0
[ 9776.459998] ? _sched_setscheduler.isra.0+0x140/0x140
[ 9776.459998] ? ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64+0x128/0x160
[ 9776.459999] __x64_sys_sched_setscheduler+0x76/0xa0
[ 9776.460000] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
[ 9776.460001] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 9776.460002] RIP: 0033:0x7fe60257a27b
[ 9776.460003] Code: 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d ad 2b 10 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 83
c8 ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa b8 90 00 00 00 0f
05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 7d 2b 10 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
[ 9776.460004] RSP: 002b:00007ffdfe38c5e8 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX:
0000000000000090
[ 9776.460006] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX:
00007fe60257a27b
[ 9776.460007] RDX: 00007ffdfe38c604 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI:
000000000001cbcc
[ 9776.460008] RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 00007ffdfe38c510 R09:
0000000000000883
[ 9776.460009] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000206 R12:
0000000000000002
[ 9776.460010] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 000000000001cbcc R15:
000055b909b568c6
[ 9779.843476] sched: RT throttling activated
>
> More concerning, that ordering is invalid to begin with, so the above
> seems like a very poor justification for this patch.
Which lock ordering are you considered invalid?
The stack trace included in the patch description show the
(console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock sequence because of
the wake_up_process() call while holding the console_sem.lock.
The reverse &rq->__lock lock may happen when a printk() statement is
called while holding the rq lock.
In this case, the printk() is triggered by a SCHED_WARN_ON() statement
in update_rq_clock() which don't call printk_deferred and so won't have
LOGLEVEL_SCHED set. I guess there is alternative way to work around this
issue, but moving the process wakeup out from the semaphore spinlock
will solve this problem in case there are other corner cases like that.
I will update the patch description to include this additional information.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists