linux-kernel - [PATCH v2] workqueue: let WORKER_CPU

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]

Message-ID: <20230822110609.GA3702@didi-ThinkCentre-M930t-N000>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2023 19:06:51 +0800
From:   Tio Zhang <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>
To:     <tj@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        <zyhtheonly@...il.com>, <zyhtheonly@...h.net>,
        <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] workqueue: let WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE be included in
 watchdog

When a pool has a worker with WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE set but other workers
are not that busy, the pool->worklist will mostly be empty, which leads
the intensive work always having a chance of escaping from the watchdog's
check. This may cause watchdog miss finding out a forever running work
in WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE.

Also, after commit '616db8779b1e3f93075df691432cccc5ef3c3ba0',
workers with potentially intensive works will automatically be converted
into WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE. This might let watchdog to miss all work
potentially running forever.

Signed-off-by: Tio Zhang <tiozhang@...iglobal.com>
---
 kernel/workqueue.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 02a8f402eeb5..564d96c38d4d 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -6277,13 +6277,29 @@ static void wq_watchdog_timer_fn(struct timer_list *unused)
 	if (!thresh)
 		return;
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
+	mutex_lock(&wq_pool_mutex);
 
 	for_each_pool(pool, pi) {
+		struct worker *worker;
 		unsigned long pool_ts, touched, ts;
+		bool check_intensive = false;
 
 		pool->cpu_stall = false;
-		if (list_empty(&pool->worklist))
+
+		/* Not sure if we should let WORKER_UNBOUND to
+		 * be included? Since let a unbound work to last
+		 * more than e,g, 30 seconds seem also unacceptable.
+		 */
+		mutex_lock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
+		for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) {
+			if (worker->flags & WORKER_CPU_INTENSIVE) {
+				check_intensive = true;
+				break;
+			}
+		}
+		mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_attach_mutex);
+
+		if (list_empty(&pool->worklist) && !check_intensive)
 			continue;
 
 		/*
@@ -6320,7 +6336,7 @@ static void wq_watchdog_timer_fn(struct timer_list *unused)
 
 	}
 
-	rcu_read_unlock();
+	mutex_unlock(&wq_pool_mutex);
 
 	if (lockup_detected)
 		show_all_workqueues();
-- 
2.17.1