| 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: <20220218180926.GX4285@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:09:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc: kernel-team@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rcu 3/3] rcu: Allow expedited RCU grace periods on
incoming CPUs
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 11:03:03PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>
> On 2/15/2022 11:09 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 07:53:10PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > On 2/14/2022 10:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:38:11AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 02:55:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > Although it is usually safe to invoke synchronize_rcu_expedited() from a
> > > > > > preemption-enabled CPU-hotplug notifier, if it is invoked from a notifier
> > > > > > between CPUHP_AP_RCUTREE_ONLINE and CPUHP_AP_ACTIVE, its attempts to
> > > > > > invoke a workqueue handler will hang due to RCU waiting on a CPU that
> > > > > > the scheduler is not paying attention to. This commit therefore expands
> > > > > > use of the existing workqueue-independent synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > > > > > from early boot to also include CPUs that are being hotplugged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link:https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7359f994-8aaf-3cea-f5cf-c0d3929689d6@quicinc.com/
> > > > > > Reported-by: Mukesh Ojha<quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Tejun Heo<tj@...nel.org>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney<paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > > > I'm surprised by this scheduler behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since sched_cpu_activate() hasn't been called yet,
> > > > > rq->balance_callback = balance_push_callback. As a result, balance_push() should
> > > > > be called at the end of schedule() when the workqueue is picked as the next task.
> > > > > Then eventually the workqueue should be immediately preempted by the stop task to
> > > > > be migrated elsewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I must be missing something. For the fun, I booted the following and it
> > > > > didn't produce any issue:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > index 80faf2273ce9..b1e74a508881 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > @@ -4234,6 +4234,8 @@ int rcutree_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > > > > // Stop-machine done, so allow nohz_full to disable tick.
> > > > > tick_dep_clear(TICK_DEP_BIT_RCU);
> > > > > + if (cpu != 0)
> > > > > + synchronize_rcu_expedited();
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > That does seem compelling. And others have argued that the workqueue
> > > > system's handling of offline CPUs should deal with this.
> > > >
> > > > Mukesh, was this a theoretical bug, or did you actually make it happen?
> > > > If you made it happen, as seems to have been the case given your original
> > > > email [1], could you please post your reproducer?
> > > No, it was not theoretical one. We saw this issue only once in our testing
> > > and i don't think it is easy to reproduce otherwise
> > > it would been fixed by now.
> > >
> > > When one of thread calling synchronize_expedite_rcu with timer of 20s but it
> > > did not get the exp funnel
> > > lock for 20s and there we crash it with panic() on timeout.
> > >
> > > The other thread cpuhp which was having the lock got stuck at the point
> > > mentioned at the below link.
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7359f994-8aaf-3cea-f5cf-c0d3929689d6@quicinc.com/
> > OK. Are you able to create an in-kernel reproducer, perhaps similar to
> > Frederic's change above?
> >
> > I am worried that the patch that I am carrying might be fixing some
> > other bug by accident...
>
> Just for information, we are running on 5.10 kernel and after numerous
> attempt, i was not able to reproduce the issue:-)
Thank you for checking!
I will drop this commit from -rcu's "dev" branch, but leave a tag
"exponl.2022.02.18a" should it ever prove necessary.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks,
> -Mukesh
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > e.g Below sample test in combination of many other test in parallel
> > >
> > > :loop
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/online"
> > >
> > > adb shell "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/online"
> > >
> > > goto loop
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Mukesh
> > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7359f994-8aaf-3cea-f5cf-c0d3929689d6@quicinc.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists