| 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: <3e7b0fa9-ec9d-4f5f-bb1e-e8cf79058e1a@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 17:01:31 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2-next] mm: memory-failure: use rcu lock instead of
tasklist_lock when collect_procs()
On 2023/8/18 16:17, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> We found a softlock issue in our test, analyzed the logs, and found that
> the relevant CPU call trace as follows:
>
> CPU0:
> _do_fork
> -> copy_process()
> -> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) //Disable irq,waiting for
> //tasklist_lock
>
> CPU1:
> wp_page_copy()
> ->pte_offset_map_lock()
> -> spin_lock(&page->ptl); //Hold page->ptl
> -> ptep_clear_flush()
> -> flush_tlb_others() ...
> -> smp_call_function_many()
> -> arch_send_call_function_ipi_mask()
> -> csd_lock_wait() //Waiting for other CPUs respond
> //IPI
>
> CPU2:
> collect_procs_anon()
> -> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) //Hold tasklist_lock
> ->for_each_process(tsk)
> -> page_mapped_in_vma()
> -> page_vma_mapped_walk()
> -> map_pte()
> ->spin_lock(&page->ptl) //Waiting for page->ptl
>
> We can see that CPU1 waiting for CPU0 respond IPI，CPU0 waiting for CPU2
> unlock tasklist_lock, CPU2 waiting for CPU1 unlock page->ptl. As a result,
> softlockup is triggered.
>
> For collect_procs_anon(), we will not modify the tasklist, but only perform
> read traversal. Therefore, we can use rcu lock instead of spin lock
> tasklist_lock, from this, we can break the softlock chain above.
>
> The same logic can also be applied to:
> - collect_procs_file()
> - collect_procs_fsdax()
> - collect_procs_ksm()
> - find_early_kill_thread()
>
> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - 1. Modify the title description.
> - 2. Optimize the implementation of find_early_kill_thread() without
> functional changes.
> ---
Those changes are fine to me， please fix the comment mentioned by Noaoya.
> mm/ksm.c | 4 ++--
> mm/memory-failure.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
> index 6b7b8928fb96..dcbc0c7f68e7 100644
> --- a/mm/ksm.c
> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
> @@ -2919,7 +2919,7 @@ void collect_procs_ksm(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> struct anon_vma *av = rmap_item->anon_vma;
>
> anon_vma_lock_read(av);
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process(tsk) {
> struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
> unsigned long addr;
> @@ -2938,7 +2938,7 @@ void collect_procs_ksm(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> }
> }
> }
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> anon_vma_unlock_read(av);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 7b01fffe7a79..4f3081f47798 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -546,24 +546,29 @@ static void kill_procs(struct list_head *to_kill, int forcekill, bool fail,
> * Find a dedicated thread which is supposed to handle SIGBUS(BUS_MCEERR_AO)
> * on behalf of the thread group. Return task_struct of the (first found)
> * dedicated thread if found, and return NULL otherwise.
> - *
> - * We already hold read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in the caller, so we don't
> - * have to call rcu_read_lock/unlock() in this function.
> */
> static struct task_struct *find_early_kill_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> struct task_struct *t;
> + bool found = false;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_thread(tsk, t) {
> if (t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS) {
> - if (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY)
> - return t;
> + if (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY) {
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> } else {
> - if (sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill)
> - return t;
> + if (sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill) {
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> }
> }
> - return NULL;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return found ? t : NULL;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -609,7 +614,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> return;
>
> pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process(tsk) {
> struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
> struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
> @@ -626,7 +631,7 @@ static void collect_procs_anon(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> add_to_kill_anon_file(t, page, vma, to_kill);
> }
> }
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> anon_vma_unlock_read(av);
> }
>
> @@ -642,7 +647,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> pgoff_t pgoff;
>
> i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> pgoff = page_to_pgoff(page);
> for_each_process(tsk) {
> struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, force_early);
> @@ -662,7 +667,7 @@ static void collect_procs_file(struct page *page, struct list_head *to_kill,
> add_to_kill_anon_file(t, page, vma, to_kill);
> }
> }
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
> }
>
> @@ -685,7 +690,7 @@ static void collect_procs_fsdax(struct page *page,
> struct task_struct *tsk;
>
> i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
> - read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> for_each_process(tsk) {
> struct task_struct *t = task_early_kill(tsk, true);
>
> @@ -696,7 +701,7 @@ static void collect_procs_fsdax(struct page *page,
> add_to_kill_fsdax(t, page, vma, to_kill, pgoff);
> }
> }
> - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_FS_DAX */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists