| 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: <PH0PR11MB588079E5ECB298E2C42C08D3DAAA9@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 00:01:57 +0000
From: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+9bb26e7c5e8e4fa7e641@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com" <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [syzbot] WARNING in exit_tasks_rcu_finish
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:26:47PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 01:55:31PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > syzbot <syzbot+9bb26e7c5e8e4fa7e641@...kaller.appspotmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > syzbot found the following issue on:
> > > >
> > > > HEAD commit: 6d0c80680317 Add linux-next specific files for 20220610
> > > > git tree: linux-next
> > > > console output:
> > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=13b52c2ff00000
> > > > kernel config:
> > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=a30d6e3e814e5931
> > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9bb26e7c5e8e4fa7e641
> > > > compiler: gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > >
> > > I don't understand what is going on in linux-next
> > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h looks different than in Linus's tree. Paul
> > > does that mean you have some staged rcu changes?
> >
> > >Less than 100 RCU-related patches in -rcu, so not all that bad.
> > >;-)
> > >
> > >But yes, this could possibly be an issue in one of those patches.
> >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > > Reported-by:
> > > > syzbot+9bb26e7c5e8e4fa7e641@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28639 at kernel/rcu/tasks.h:1664
> > > > exit_tasks_rcu_finish_trace kernel/rcu/tasks.h:1664 [inline]
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 28639 at kernel/rcu/tasks.h:1664
> > > > exit_tasks_rcu_finish+0x122/0x1b0 kernel/rcu/tasks.h:1006
> >
> > >The usual way for this warning to trigger is for these a task to exit while in an RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical section:
> > >
> > > rcu_read_lock_trace();
> > > do_something_that_causes_task_exit();
> > >
> >
> > Hi Paul, wether the following scenarios be considered
> >
> > rcu_read_unlock_trace_special
> > ->if (trs.b.blocked)
> > ->raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node
> > ->list_del_init(&t->trc_blkd_node)
> > ->WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.b.blocked, false)
> > ->raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node
> > ->Inerrrupt
> > ->schedule
> > ->rcu_note_context_switch
> > ->rcu_tasks_trace_qs
> > If (___rttq_nesting && !READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked)
> > /*___rttq_nesting ==1 && (t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked =false*/
> > rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(t)
> > ->WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, 0)
> > .......
> > -> exit_tasks_rcu_finish
> >
> > Whether the following patch can fix it, or what am I missing?
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h index
> > f1209ce621c5..c607e4c914d3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > @@ -1247,6 +1247,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > struct rcu_tasks_percpu *rtpcp;
> > union rcu_special trs;
> >
> > + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, 0);
> > // Open-coded full-word version of rcu_ld_need_qs().
> > smp_mb(); // Enforce full grace-period ordering.
> > trs = smp_load_acquire(&t->trc_reader_special);
> > @@ -1267,7 +1268,6 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.b.blocked, false);
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rtpcp, flags);
> > }
> > - WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, 0);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_unlock_trace_special);
>
> >Thank you for looking into this!
> >
> >You do have what I believe to be the correct failure scenario, but the above fix would break nested RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical sections.
>
> Hi Paul
>
> Break nested RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical sections?
> Does it mean the following?
>
> rcu_read_unlock_trace
> -> WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, INT_MIN);
> /* t->trc_reader_special.s == 0*/
> -> if (likely(!READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.s)) || nesting)
> -> Interrupt
> -> schedule
> -> rcu_note_context_switch
> -> rcu_tasks_trace_qs
> /*___rttq_nesting == INT_MIN && (t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked == false*/
> ->rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(t)
> /*nesting == 0*/
> -> WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, nesting);
> -> return;
Directly return.
> .........
> exit_tasks_rcu_finish
> trigger Warnings
>
My change ignores this, so I described the above scenario, the rcu_read_unlock_trace_special() is not be called.
Thanks
Zqiang
> Or where am I misunderstanding?
>I suspect that you do in fact understand it. Let's walk through the failure scenario again and see.
>
>If that READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.s) return zero as you suggest,
>and then the interrupt and schedule happen as you suggest, then
>rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd() will see a non-zero ->trc_reader_nesting and
>a zero .b.blocked. It queues the task, but rcu_read_unlock_trace()
>won't check again. It will set ->trc_reader_nesting to zero and
>continue. As you noted, if the task exits in that state, then
>exit_tasks_rcu_finish_trace() will trigger its WARN_ON_ONCE().
I understand the problem you describe, Just like the call flow I described above,
rcu_read_unlock_trace_special() may not be called.
Thanks
Zqiang
>
>Your change won't affect this because rcu_read_unlock_trace_special() never gets called.
>
>Hence the approach in the patch below.
>
>Do you see any failure modes given the below patch?
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> >But would you be willing to try out the patch shown below?
>
> I will try to test it.
>Thank you very much!
>
> Thanx, Paul
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >---
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index
> 08059d8d4f5a7..937a58b3266bf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ void rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(struct task_struct *t);
> if (likely(!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
> likely(!___rttq_nesting)) { \
> rcu_trc_cmpxchg_need_qs((t), 0, TRC_NEED_QS_CHECKED); \
> - } else if (___rttq_nesting && \
> + } else if (___rttq_nesting && ___rttq_nesting != INT_MIN && \
> !READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked)) { \
> rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(t); \
> } \
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h
> b/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h index 6f9c358173989..9bc8cbb33340b
> 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock_trace(void)
> nesting = READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting) - 1;
> barrier(); // Critical section before disabling.
> // Disable IPI-based setting of .need_qs.
> - WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, INT_MIN);
> + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, INT_MIN + nesting);
> if (likely(!READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.s)) || nesting) {
> WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, nesting);
> return; // We assume shallow reader nesting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists