linux-kernel - Re: [Question] softlockup in run_timer

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

Date:   Mon, 1 May 2023 20:06:13 -0700
From:   John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To:     "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>,
        Frank Woo <frankwoo@...gle.com>,
        Rhine Wu <Rhinewuwu@...gle.com>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] softlockup in run_timer_softirq

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:34 AM liujian (CE) <liujian56@...wei.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 1:51 AM liujian (CE) <liujian56@...wei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > During the syz test, we encountered many problems with various timer
> > > handler functions softlockup.
> > >
> > > We analyze __run_timers() and find the following problem.
> > >
> > > In the while loop of __run_timers(), because there are too many timers
> > > or improper timer handler functions, if the processing time of the
> > > expired timers is always greater than the time wheel's next_expiry,
> > > the function will loop infinitely.
> > >
> > > The following extreme test case can be used to reproduce the problem.
> > > An extreme test case[1] is constructed to reproduce the problem.
> >
> > Thanks for reporting and sending out this data:
> >
> > First, any chance you might submit this as a in-kernel-stress test?
> > Maybe utilizing the kernel/torture.c framework?
> >
> Okay,   I'll learn this framework and do this thing.
> > (Though the test may need to occasionally take a break so the system can
> > eventually catch up)
> >
> > > Is this a problem or an unreasonable use?
> > >
> > > Can we limit the running time of __run_timers() [2]?
> > >
> > > Does anyone have a good idea to solve this problem?
> >
> > So your patch reminds me of Peter's softirq_needs_break() logic:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=co
> > re/softirq
> >
> > Maybe it could extend that series for the timer softirq as well?
> >
> Thank you. Yes.
> Base on the patchset and the extended patch for timer [1], the soft lockup problem does not occur.
>
> By the way, I see this is a very old patchset?  Will this patchset push the main line? @John @Peter
>
>
>  [1]
> Author: Liu Jian <liujian56@...wei.com>
> Date:   Tue Feb 14 09:53:46 2023 +0800
>
>     softirq, timer: Use softirq_needs_break()
>
>     In the while loop of __run_timers(), because there are too many timers or
>     improper timer handler functions, if the processing time of the expired
>     timers is always greater than the time wheel's next_expiry, the function
>     will loop infinitely.
>
>     To prevent this, use the timeout/break logic provided by SoftIRQs.If the
>     running time exceeds the limit, break the loop and an additional
>     TIMER_SOFTIRQ is triggered.
>
>     Signed-off-by: Liu Jian <liujian56@...wei.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 63a8ce7177dd..70744a469a39 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1992,7 +1992,7 @@ void timer_clear_idle(void)
>   * __run_timers - run all expired timers (if any) on this CPU.
>   * @base: the timer vector to be processed.
>   */
> -static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
> +static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base, struct softirq_action *h)
>  {
>         struct hlist_head heads[LVL_DEPTH];
>         int levels;
> @@ -2020,6 +2020,12 @@ static inline void __run_timers(struct timer_base *base)
>
>                 while (levels--)
>                         expire_timers(base, heads + levels);
> +
> +               if (softirq_needs_break(h)) {
> +                       if (time_after_eq(jiffies, base->next_expiry))
> +                               __raise_softirq_irqoff(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
> +                       break;
> +               }
>         }
>         raw_spin_unlock_irq(&base->lock);
>         timer_base_unlock_expiry(base);
> @@ -2032,9 +2038,9 @@ static __latent_entropy void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
>  {
>         struct timer_base *base = this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_STD]);
>
> -       __run_timers(base);
> +       __run_timers(base, h);
>         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON))
> -               __run_timers(this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF]));
> +               __run_timers(this_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF]), h);
>  }
>
>  /*

So I wanted to revive this old thread, as Frank Woo mentioned his team
has seen a similar issue as well.

Liujian: I'm curious if you've made any further progress with your
adapted patch ontop of PeterZ's softirq_needs_break patch series?

Might it be worth re-submitting the whole series for consideration upstream?

thanks
-john