[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230908180100.3458151-2-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:00:48 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>,
Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, brauner@...nel.org,
mst@...hat.com, michael.christie@...cle.com,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
surenb@...gle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, npiggin@...il.com,
mjguzik@...il.com, avagin@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.4 02/13] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct() calling context
From: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
[ Upstream commit d243b34459cea30cfe5f3a9b2feb44e7daff9938 ]
Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
One practical example is splat inside inactive_task_timer(), which is
called in a interrupt context:
CPU: 1 PID: 2848 Comm: life Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W ---------
Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL388p Gen8, BIOS P70 07/15/2012
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
mark_lock_irq.cold+0x33/0xba
mark_lock+0x1e7/0x400
mark_usage+0x11d/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x30d/0x930
lock_acquire.part.0+0x9c/0x210
rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0
refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
kmem_cache_free+0x357/0x560
inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
__run_hrtimer+0x8a/0x1a0
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x91/0x130
hrtimer_interrupt+0x10f/0x220
__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7b/0xd0
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4f/0xd0
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
RIP: 0033:0x7fff196bf6f5
Instead of calling __put_task_struct() directly, we defer it using
call_rcu(). A more natural approach would use a workqueue, but since
in PREEMPT_RT, we can't allocate dynamic memory from atomic context,
the code would become more complex because we would need to put the
work_struct instance in the task_struct and initialize it when we
allocate a new task_struct.
The issue is reproducible with stress-ng:
while true; do
stress-ng --sched deadline --sched-period 1000000000 \
--sched-runtime 800000000 --sched-deadline \
1000000000 --mmapfork 23 -t 20
done
Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230614122323.37957-2-wander@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
include/linux/sched/task.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
kernel/fork.c | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
index e0f5ac90a228b..d20de91e3b957 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
@@ -118,10 +118,36 @@ static inline struct task_struct *get_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
}
extern void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t);
+extern void __put_task_struct_rcu_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp);
static inline void put_task_struct(struct task_struct *t)
{
- if (refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
+ if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * 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 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.
+ *
+ * delayed_free_task() also uses ->rcu, but it is only called
+ * when it fails to fork a process. Therefore, there is no
+ * way it can conflict with put_task_struct().
+ */
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && !preemptible())
+ call_rcu(&t->rcu, __put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
+ else
__put_task_struct(t);
}
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 8103ffd217e97..38cfcfbd8b489 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -989,6 +989,14 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
+void __put_task_struct_rcu_cb(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+ struct task_struct *task = container_of(rhp, struct task_struct, rcu);
+
+ __put_task_struct(task);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct_rcu_cb);
+
void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
/*
--
2.40.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists