| 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: <PH0PR11MB58807A0B060B84C4159A16C0DA869@PH0PR11MB5880.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 23:52:13 +0000
From: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
To: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC: "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
"joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"qiang.zhang1211@...il.com" <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] srcu: Fix flush sup work warning in cleanup_srcu_struct()
>On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:08:54PM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > > insmod rcutorture.ko
> > > > rmmod rcutorture.ko
> > > >
> > > > [ 209.437327] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 508 at kernel/workqueue.c:3167
> > > > __flush_work+0x50a/0x540 [ 209.437346] Modules linked in:
> > > > rcutorture(-) torture [last unloaded: rcutorture] [ 209.437382]
> > > > CPU: 0 PID: 508 Comm: rmmod Tainted: G W 6.3.0-rc1-yocto-standard+
> > > > [ 209.437406] RIP: 0010:__flush_work+0x50a/0x540 .....
> > > > [ 209.437758] flush_delayed_work+0x36/0x90 [ 209.437776]
> > > > cleanup_srcu_struct+0x68/0x2e0 [ 209.437817]
> > > > srcu_module_notify+0x71/0x140 [ 209.437854]
> > > > blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x9d/0xd0
> > > > [ 209.437880] __x64_sys_delete_module+0x223/0x2e0
> > > > [ 209.438046] do_syscall_64+0x43/0x90 [ 209.438062]
> > > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
> > > >
> > > > For srcu objects defined with DEFINE_SRCU() or DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(),
> > > > when compiling and loading as modules, the srcu_module_coming() is
> > > > invoked, allocate memory for srcu structure's->sda and initialize
> > > > sda structure, due to not fully initialize srcu structure's->sup, so
> > > > at this time the sup structure's->delaywork.func is null, if not
> > > > invoke init_srcu_struct_fields() before unloading modules, in
> > > > srcu_module_going() the __flush_work() find
> > > > work->func is empty, will raise the warning above.
> > > >
> > > > This commit add init_srcu_struct_fields() to initialize srcu
> > > > structure's->sup, in srcu_module_coming().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > >Good catch, and thank you for testing the in-module case!
> > > >
> > > >One question below...
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c index
> > > > 1fb078abbdc9..42d8720e016c 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > > > @@ -1921,7 +1921,8 @@ static int srcu_module_coming(struct module *mod)
> > > > ssp->sda = alloc_percpu(struct srcu_data);
> > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ssp->sda))
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > - init_srcu_struct_data(ssp);
> > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(init_srcu_struct_fields(ssp, true)))
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > >Wouldn't it be better to simply delete the init_srcu_struct_data()?
> > > >
> > > >Then the first call to check_init_srcu_struct() would take care of
> > > >the initialization, just as for the non-module case. Or am I missing
> > > >something subtle?
> > >
> > > Hi Paul
> > >
> > > Maybe the check_init_srcu_struct() is always not invoked, for example,
> > > In rcutorture.c, here is such a definition DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(srcu_ctl),
> > > but we use torture_type=rcu to test, there will not be any interface
> > > calling
> > > check_init_srcu_struct() to initialize srcu_ctl and set
> > > structure's->delaywork.func is process_srcu().
> > > when we unload the rcutorture module, invoke cleanup_srcu_struct() to
> > > flush sup structure's->delaywork.func, due to the func pointer is not
> > > initialize, it's null, will trigger warning.
> > >
> > > About kernel/workqueue.c:3167
> > >
> > > __flush_work
> > > if (WARN_ON(!work->func)) <---------trigger waning
> > > return false;
> > >
> > >
> > > and in init_srcu_struct_fields(ssp, true), wil set
> > > srcu_sup->sda_is_static is true and set srcu_sup-> srcu_gp_seq_needed
> > > is zero, after that when we call
> > > check_init_srcu_struct() again, it not be initialized again.
> > >
> > >
> > >Good point! In the non-module statically allocated case there is never a call to cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > >
> > >So suppose the code in srcu_module_coming() only did the alloc_percpu(), and then the
> > >code in srcu_module_going() only did the the matching
> > >free_percpu() instead of the current cleanup_srcu_struct()?
> >
> > But in modules, for srcu objects defined with DEFINE_SRCU() or DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(),
> > when a module is unloaded, we usually don't call cleanup_srcu_struct() in the module
> > unload function.
> > If in srcu_module_going() only do free_percpu(), the srcu_sup->node memory maybe
> > can not free and also lost the opportunity to refresh the running work.
> >
> >
> >But in the module case, isn't the srcu_sup->node also statically
> >allocated via the "static struct srcu_usage" declaration?
>
> static bool init_srcu_struct_nodes(struct srcu_struct *ssp, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> {
> sp->srcu_sup->node = kcalloc(rcu_num_nodes, sizeof(*ssp->srcu_sup->node), gfp_flags);
> ...
> }
>
> Regardless of whether the srcu object is declared in the module or not, sup->node is dynamically allocated.
> right?
>
>You are absolutely right, thank you!
>
>There are a couple of ways to resolve this. One is to simply add
>a check_init_srcu_struct() before the call to cleanup_srcu_struct()
>from srcu_module_going(), as shown below. This seems a bit silly,
>potentially initializing fields for no good reason.
>
>Another way is to make cleanup_srcu_struct() do the same check
>that check_init_srcu_struct() does:
>
> rcu_seq_state(smp_load_acquire(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_seq_needed))
>
>If the value is non-zero, then cleanup_srcu_struct() should skip
>consistency checks that complain about things that cannot happen if
>there never was an RCU grace period. Maybe something as shown after
>the second line of dashes.
>
>Thoughts?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>/* Initialize any global-scope srcu_struct structures used by this module. */
>static int srcu_module_coming(struct module *mod)
>{
> int i;
> struct srcu_struct **sspp = mod->srcu_struct_ptrs;
> struct srcu_struct *ssp;
>
> for (i = 0; i < mod->num_srcu_structs; i++) {
> ssp = *(sspp++);
> ssp->sda = alloc_percpu(struct srcu_data);
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ssp->sda))
> return -ENOMEM;
> init_srcu_struct_data(ssp);
> }
> return 0;
>}
>
>/* Clean up any global-scope srcu_struct structures used by this module. */
>static void srcu_module_going(struct module *mod)
>{
> int i;
> struct srcu_struct *ssp;
> struct srcu_struct **sspp = mod->srcu_struct_ptrs;
>
> for (i = 0; i < mod->num_srcu_structs; i++) {
> ssp = *(sspp++);
> check_init_srcu_struct(ssp);
> cleanup_srcu_struct(ssp);
> }
>}
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
>{
> int cpu;
> struct srcu_usage *sup = ssp->srcu_sup;
> bool wasused = !rcu_seq_state(smp_load_acquire(&ssp->srcu_sup->srcu_gp_seq_needed));
>
> if (WARN_ON(wasused && !srcu_get_delay(ssp)))
> return; /* Just leak it! */
> if (WARN_ON(srcu_readers_active(ssp)))
> return; /* Just leak it! */
> flush_delayed_work(&sup->work);
> if (wasused) {
If wasused=false It not need to invoke flush_delayed_work(&sup->work);
this trigger WARN_ON(!work->func)) .
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct srcu_data *sdp = per_cpu_ptr(ssp->sda, cpu);
>
> del_timer_sync(&sdp->delay_work);
> flush_work(&sdp->work);
> if (WARN_ON(rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&sdp->srcu_cblist)))
> return; /* Forgot srcu_barrier(), so just leak it! */
> }
> }
> if (WARN_ON(wasused && rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(sup->srcu_gp_seq)) != SRCU_STATE_IDLE) ||
> WARN_ON(wasused && rcu_seq_current(&sup->srcu_gp_seq) != sup->srcu_gp_seq_needed) ||
> WARN_ON(srcu_readers_active(ssp))) {
> pr_info("%s: Active srcu_struct %p read state: %d gp state: %lu/%lu\n",
> __func__, ssp, rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(sup->srcu_gp_seq)),
> rcu_seq_current(&sup->srcu_gp_seq), sup->srcu_gp_seq_needed);
> return; /* Caller forgot to stop doing call_srcu()? */
> }
> kfree(sup->node);
> sup->node = NULL;
> sup->srcu_size_state = SRCU_SIZE_SMALL;
> if (!sup->sda_is_static) {
> free_percpu(ssp->sda);
> ssp->sda = NULL;
> kfree(sup);
> ssp->srcu_sup = NULL;
> }
>}
If we have not invoke check_init_srcu_struct() , that means call_srcu(), synchronize_srcu(), srcu_barrier(), start_poll_synchronize_srcu() are also not invoke, so Is there no need to check
srcu_readers_active()?
Thanks
Zqiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists