linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next] mark access to tick_do_timer_cpu with READ_ONCE/WRITE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230123165403.GQ2948950@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 08:54:03 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...il.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] mark access to tick_do_timer_cpu with
 READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:44:25AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:59 PM Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 11:25 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 01:51:29PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 01:21:28PM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
> > > > > mark access to tick_do_timer_cpu with READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE to fix concurrency bug
> > > > > reported by KCSAN.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > During the rcutorture test on linux-next,
> > > > > ./tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/torture.sh --do-kcsan  --kcsan-kmake-arg "CC=clang-12"
> > > > > following KCSAN BUG is reported:
> > > > > [   35.397089] BUG: KCSAN: data-race in tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick / tick_nohz_next_event^M
> > > > > [   35.400593] ^M
> > > > > [   35.401377] write to 0xffffffffb64b1270 of 4 bytes by task 0 on cpu 3:^M
> > > > > [   35.405325]  tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick+0x14c/0x3e0^M
> > > > > [   35.407162]  do_idle+0xf3/0x2a0^M
> > > > > [   35.408016]  cpu_startup_entry+0x15/0x20^M
> > > > > [   35.409084]  start_secondary+0x8f/0x90^M
> > > > > [   35.410207]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xe1/0xeb^M
> > > > > [   35.411607] ^M
> > > > > [   35.412042] no locks held by swapper/3/0.^M
> > > > > [   35.413172] irq event stamp: 53048^M
> > > > > [   35.414175] hardirqs last  enabled at (53047): [<ffffffffb41f8404>] tick_nohz_idle_enter+0x104/0x140^M
> > > > > [   35.416681] hardirqs last disabled at (53048): [<ffffffffb41229f1>] do_idle+0x91/0x2a0^M
> > > > > [   35.418988] softirqs last  enabled at (53038): [<ffffffffb40bf21e>] __irq_exit_rcu+0x6e/0xc0^M
> > > > > [   35.421347] softirqs last disabled at (53029): [<ffffffffb40bf21e>] __irq_exit_rcu+0x6e/0xc0^M
> > > > > [   35.423685] ^M
> > > > > [   35.424119] read to 0xffffffffb64b1270 of 4 bytes by task 0 on cpu 0:^M
> > > > > [   35.425870]  tick_nohz_next_event+0x233/0x2b0^M
> > > > > [   35.427119]  tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick+0x8f/0x3e0^M
> > > > > [   35.428386]  do_idle+0xf3/0x2a0^M
> > > > > [   35.429265]  cpu_startup_entry+0x15/0x20^M
> > > > > [   35.430429]  rest_init+0x20c/0x210^M
> > > > > [   35.431382]  arch_call_rest_init+0xe/0x10^M
> > > > > [   35.432508]  start_kernel+0x544/0x600^M
> > > > > [   35.433519]  secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xe1/0xeb^M
> > > > >
> > > > > fix above bug by marking access to tick_do_timer_cpu with READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE
> > > >
> > > > This has been discussed before with passion:
> > > >
> > > > http://archive.lwn.net:8080/linux-kernel/1C65422C-FFA4-4651-893B-300FAF9C49DE@....pw/T/
> > > >
> > > > To me data_race() would be more appropriate but that would need a changelog with
> > > > proper analysis of the tick_do_timer_cpu state machine.
> > >
> > > Please also an analysis of why the compiler cannot do any destructive
> > > optimizations in this case.  Maybe also comments.
> > I want to try the analysis above, as a newbie I have taught myself
> > LLVM for 3 years in my spare time ;-)
> 
> I am continuing to study LLVM/Clang's optimization behaviour on
> tick_do_timer_cpu, it is very interesting and fascinating, but as a
> newbie, I still need 3-4 week to go, could you wait for me a little
> while? ;-)

Please do take the time to get it right and to get it correctly
documented.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Many Thanks
> Zhouyi
> > >
> > > > One more thing on my TODO list, but feel free to beat me at it :-)
> > Please take your time ;-)   Please don't look my next possible email
> > as a reminder ;-)
> > >
> > > I know that feeling!  ;-)
> > >
> > Thanx, Zhouyi
> > >                                                         Thanx, Paul