| 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: <Y/ggCdoMEhMO8vs+@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 02:25:13 +0000
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in
call_rcu_tasks_generic()
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:36:05AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 08:43:05AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > From: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:30 PM
> > > To: paulmck@...nel.org; frederic@...nel.org; quic_neeraju@...cinc.com;
> > > joel@...lfernandes.org
> > > Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in
> > > call_rcu_tasks_generic()
> > >
> > > According to commit '3063b33a347c ("Avoid raw-spinlocked wakeups from
> > > call_rcu_tasks_generic()")', the grace-period kthread is delayed to wakeup
> > > using irq_work_queue() is because if the caller of
> > > call_rcu_tasks_generic() holds a raw spinlock, when the kernel is built with
> > > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y, due to a spinlock will be hold in
> > > wake_up(), so the lockdep splats will happen. but now using
> > > rcuwait_wake_up() to wakeup grace-period kthread instead of wake_up(), in
> > > rcuwait_wake_up() no spinlock will be acquired, so this commit remove using
> > >
> > >There are still spinlock-acquisition and spinlock-release invocations within the call path from rcuwait_wake_up().
> > >
> > >rcuwait_wake_up() -> wake_up_process() -> try_to_wake_up(), then:
> > >
> > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
> > > ...
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> >
> > Yes, but this is raw_spinlock acquisition and release(note: spinlock will convert to
> > sleepable lock in Preempt-RT kernel, but raw spinlock is not change).
> >
> > acquire raw_spinlock -> acquire spinlock will trigger lockdep warning.
> >
> >Is this really safe in the long run though? I seem to remember there are
> >weird locking dependencies if RCU is used from within the scheduler [1].
> >
>
>
> I have been running rcutorture with rcutorture.type = tasks-tracing,
> so far no problems have been found.
>
>
> >I prefer to keep it as irq_work_queue() unless you are seeing some benefit.
> >Generally, there has to be a 'win' or other justification for adding more
> >risk.
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >- Joel
> >[1] http://www.joelfernandes.org/rcu/scheduler/locking/2019/09/02/rcu-schedlocks.html
>
>
> The problem in this link, in an earlier RCU version, rcu_read_unlock_special()
> Invoke wakeup and enter scheduler can lead to deadlock, but my modification is for
> call_rcu_tasks_generic(), even if there is a lock dependency problem, we should pay
> more attention to rcu_read_unlock_trace_special()
Consider ABBA deadlocks as well, not just self-deadlocks (which IIRC is what
the straight-RCU rcu_read_unlock() issues were about).
What prevents the following scenario?
In the scheduler you have code like this:
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
trace_sched_wait_task(p);
Someone can hook up a BPF program to that tracepoint that then calls
rcu_read_unlock_trace() -> rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(). All of
this while holding the rq and pi scheduler locks.
That's A (rq lock) -> B (rtpcp lock).
In another path, your change adds the following dependency due to doing
wakeup under the rtpcp lock.
That's call_rcu_tasks_generic() -> B (rtpcp lock) -> A (rq lock).
Maybe there is some other state that prevents this case, but it still makes
me queasy specially since there is perhaps no benefit more than deleting a
few lines of code.
Either way, nice observation!
Btw, the way irq_work works is quite interesting, so I guess what it does is
it does a self-IPI and then runs the callback in hard IRQ context, without
holding any locks. Another interesting fact is, there is also a "lazy"
version of the IRQ work API (IRQ_WORK_INIT_LAZY) which seems currently to be
used by printk. This executes the work from the scheduler tick instead of an
IPI handler unless the tick is stopped.
thanks,
- Joel
>
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> > > irq_work_queue(), invoke rcuwait_wake_up() directly in
> > > call_rcu_tasks_generic().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 16 +---------------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h index
> > > baf7ec178155..757b8c6da1ad 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ struct rcu_tasks_percpu {
> > > unsigned long rtp_jiffies;
> > > unsigned long rtp_n_lock_retries;
> > > struct work_struct rtp_work;
> > > - struct irq_work rtp_irq_work;
> > > struct rcu_head barrier_q_head;
> > > struct list_head rtp_blkd_tasks;
> > > int cpu;
> > > @@ -112,12 +111,9 @@ struct rcu_tasks {
> > > char *kname;
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static void call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup(struct irq_work *iwp);
> > > -
> > > #define DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rt_name, gp, call, n)
> > > \
> > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rcu_tasks_percpu, rt_name ## __percpu) = {
> > > \
> > > .lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(rt_name ##
> > > __percpu.cbs_pcpu_lock), \
> > > - .rtp_irq_work = IRQ_WORK_INIT_HARD(call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup),
> > > \
> > > };
> > > \
> > > static struct rcu_tasks rt_name =
> > > \
> > > {
> > > \
> > > @@ -273,16 +269,6 @@ static void cblist_init_generic(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > > pr_info("%s: Setting shift to %d and lim to %d.\n", __func__,
> > > data_race(rtp->percpu_enqueue_shift), data_race(rtp-
> > > >percpu_enqueue_lim));
> > > }
> > >
> > > -// IRQ-work handler that does deferred wakeup for call_rcu_tasks_generic().
> > > -static void call_rcu_tasks_iw_wakeup(struct irq_work *iwp) -{
> > > - struct rcu_tasks *rtp;
> > > - struct rcu_tasks_percpu *rtpcp = container_of(iwp, struct
> > > rcu_tasks_percpu, rtp_irq_work);
> > > -
> > > - rtp = rtpcp->rtpp;
> > > - rcuwait_wake_up(&rtp->cbs_wait);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > // Enqueue a callback for the specified flavor of Tasks RCU.
> > > static void call_rcu_tasks_generic(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func,
> > > struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > > @@ -334,7 +320,7 @@ static void call_rcu_tasks_generic(struct rcu_head
> > > *rhp, rcu_callback_t func,
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > /* We can't create the thread unless interrupts are enabled. */
> > > if (needwake && READ_ONCE(rtp->kthread_ptr))
> > > - irq_work_queue(&rtpcp->rtp_irq_work);
> > > + rcuwait_wake_up(&rtp->cbs_wait);
> > > }
> > >
> > > // RCU callback function for rcu_barrier_tasks_generic().
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists