| 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: <105084b0-9d65-4896-97e4-35ef3c6f1fae@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:52:52 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM"
<linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe()
function
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 03:43:09PM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:09 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:55:28AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > > Due to the possibility of indirectly acquiring sleeping locks, it is
> > > unsafe to call put_task_struct() in atomic contexts when the kernel is
> > > compiled with PREEMPT_RT.
> > >
> > > To mitigate this issue, this commit introduces
> > > put_task_struct_atomic_safe(), which schedules __put_task_struct()
> > > through call_rcu() when PREEMPT_RT is enabled. While a workqueue would
> > > be a more natural approach, we cannot allocate dynamic memory from
> > > atomic context in PREEMPT_RT, making the code more complex.
> > >
> > > This implementation ensures safe execution in atomic contexts and
> > > avoids any potential issues that may arise from using the non-atomic
> > > version.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
> > > Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/sched/task.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > > index b597b97b1f8f..5c13b83d7008 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > > @@ -141,6 +141,37 @@ static inline void put_task_struct_many(struct task_struct *t, int nr)
> > >
> > > void put_task_struct_rcu_user(struct task_struct *task);
> > >
> > > +extern void __delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp);
> > > +
> > > +static inline void put_task_struct_atomic_safe(struct task_struct *task)
> > > +{
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Decrement the refcount explicitly to avoid unnecessarily
> > > + * calling call_rcu.
> > > + */
> > > + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&task->usage))
> > > + /*
> > > + * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> > > + * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> > > + * acquire sleeping locks.
> > > + * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> > > + * to be called in process context.
> > > + *
> > > + * __put_task_struct() is called called when
> > > + * refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage) succeeds.
> > > + *
> > > + * This means that it can't "conflict" with
> > > + * put_task_struct_rcu_user() which abuses ->rcu the same
> > > + * way; rcu_users has a reference so task->usage can't be
> > > + * zero after rcu_users 1 -> 0 transition.
> > > + */
> > > + call_rcu(&task->rcu, __delayed_put_task_struct);
> >
> > This will invoke __delayed_put_task_struct() with softirqs disabled.
> > Or do softirq-disabled contexts count as non-atomic in PREEMPT_RT?
>
> softirqs execute in thread context in PREEMPT_RT. We are good here.
So the sleeping lock is a spinlock rather than (say) a mutex?
Thanx, Paul
> > > + } else {
> > > + put_task_struct(task);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /* Free all architecture-specific resources held by a thread. */
> > > void release_thread(struct task_struct *dead_task);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > > index 0c92f224c68c..9884794fe4b8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > > @@ -854,6 +854,14 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > }
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
> > >
> > > +void __delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > > +{
> > > + struct task_struct *task = container_of(rhp, struct task_struct, rcu);
> > > +
> > > + __put_task_struct(task);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__delayed_put_task_struct);
> > > +
> > > void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > --
> > > 2.39.2
> > >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists