linux-kernel - [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using never-online CPUs

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 10:26:38 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org, riel@...riel.com
Subject: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using never-online
 CPUs

The rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() relies on queue_work_on() to silently fall
back to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND when the specified CPU is offline.  However,
the queue_work_on() function's silent fallback mechanism relies on that
CPU having been online at some time in the past.  When queue_work_on()
is passed a CPU that has never been online, workqueue lockups ensue,
which can be bad for your kernel's general health and well-being.

This commit therefore checks whether a given CPU is currently online,
and, if not substitutes WORK_CPU_UNBOUND in the subsequent call to
queue_work_on().  Why not simply omit the queue_work_on() call entirely?
Because this function is flooding callback-invocation notifications
to all CPUs, and must deal with possibilities that include a sparse
cpu_possible_mask.

Fixes: d363f833c6d88 rcu-tasks: Use workqueues for multiple rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() invocations
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index cf7b00af9474..055a5f152127 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -464,6 +464,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs(struct rcu_tasks *rtp, struct rcu_tasks_percpu
 {
 	int cpu;
 	int cpunext;
+	int cpuwq1;
+	int cpuwq2;
 	unsigned long flags;
 	int len;
 	struct rcu_head *rhp;
@@ -474,11 +476,26 @@ static void rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs(struct rcu_tasks *rtp, struct rcu_tasks_percpu
 	cpunext = cpu * 2 + 1;
 	if (cpunext < smp_load_acquire(&rtp->percpu_dequeue_lim)) {
 		rtpcp_next = per_cpu_ptr(rtp->rtpcpu, cpunext);
-		queue_work_on(cpunext, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
+
+		// If a CPU has never been online, queue_work_on()
+		// objects to queueing work on that CPU.  Approximate a
+		// check for this by checking if the CPU is currently online.
+
+		cpus_read_lock();
+		cpuwq1 = cpu_online(cpunext) ? cpunext : WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
+		cpuwq2 = cpu_online(cpunext + 1) ? cpunext + 1 : WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
+		cpus_read_unlock();
+
+		// Yes, either CPU could go offline here.  But that is
+		// OK because queue_work_on() will (in effect) silently
+		// fall back to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND for any CPU that has ever
+		// been online.
+
+		queue_work_on(cpuwq1, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
 		cpunext++;
 		if (cpunext < smp_load_acquire(&rtp->percpu_dequeue_lim)) {
 			rtpcp_next = per_cpu_ptr(rtp->rtpcpu, cpunext);
-			queue_work_on(cpunext, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
+			queue_work_on(cpuwq2, system_wq, &rtpcp_next->rtp_work);
 		}
 	}