| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 20:07:03 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com, yu.c.chen@...el.com,
frederic@...nel.org, quic_neeraju@...cinc.com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, qiang.zhang1211@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Break rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock order
On 10/31/23 16:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 07:29:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> Other than the de-alphabetization of the local variables, it looks
>> plausible to me. Frederic's suggestion also sounds plausible to me.
> Having spend the better part of the past two decades using upside down
> xmas trees for local variables, this alphabet thing is obnoxious :-)
>
> But your code, your rules.
>
> To reduce the number of alphabet songs required, I've taken the liberty
> to move a few variables into a narrower scope, hope that doesn't offend.
>
> ---
> Subject: rcu: Break rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock order
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:53:08 +0100
>
> Commit 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in
> do_set_cpus_allowed()") added a kfree() call to free any user
> provided affinity mask, if present. It was changed later to use
> kfree_rcu() in commit 9a5418bc48ba ("sched/core: Use kfree_rcu()
> in do_set_cpus_allowed()") to avoid a circular locking dependency
> problem.
>
> It turns out that even kfree_rcu() isn't safe for avoiding
> circular locking problem. As reported by kernel test robot,
> the following circular locking dependency now exists:
>
> &rdp->nocb_lock --> rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock
>
> Solve this by breaking the rcu_node_0 --> &rq->__lock chain by moving
> the resched_cpu() out from under rcu_node lock.
>
> [peterz: heavily borrowed from Waiman's Changelog]
> Fixes: 851a723e45d1 ("sched: Always clear user_cpus_ptr in do_set_cpus_allowed()")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202310302207.a25f1a30-oliver.sang@intel.com
Thanks for addressing this issue. I am fine with your way as long as it
gets the job done. I am not familiar enough of the RCU code to do a
proper review, but I do get the general idea of your change and it looks
good to me.
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -754,14 +754,19 @@ static int dyntick_save_progress_counter
> }
>
> /*
> - * Return true if the specified CPU has passed through a quiescent
> - * state by virtue of being in or having passed through an dynticks
> - * idle state since the last call to dyntick_save_progress_counter()
> - * for this same CPU, or by virtue of having been offline.
> + * Returns positive if the specified CPU has passed through a quiescent state
> + * by virtue of being in or having passed through an dynticks idle state since
> + * the last call to dyntick_save_progress_counter() for this same CPU, or by
> + * virtue of having been offline.
> + *
> + * Returns negative if the specified CPU needs a force resched.
> + *
> + * Returns zero otherwise.
> */
> static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> {
> unsigned long jtsq;
> + int ret = 0;
> struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
>
> /*
> @@ -847,8 +852,8 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(stru
> (time_after(jiffies, READ_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched) + jtsq * 3) ||
> rcu_state.cbovld)) {
> WRITE_ONCE(rdp->rcu_urgent_qs, true);
> - resched_cpu(rdp->cpu);
> WRITE_ONCE(rdp->last_fqs_resched, jiffies);
> + ret = -1;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -891,7 +896,7 @@ static int rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs(stru
> }
> }
>
> - return 0;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /* Trace-event wrapper function for trace_rcu_future_grace_period. */
> @@ -2257,15 +2262,15 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct
> {
> int cpu;
> unsigned long flags;
> - unsigned long mask;
> - struct rcu_data *rdp;
> struct rcu_node *rnp;
>
> rcu_state.cbovld = rcu_state.cbovldnext;
> rcu_state.cbovldnext = false;
> rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rnp) {
> + unsigned long mask = 0;
> + unsigned long rsmask = 0;
> +
> cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
> - mask = 0;
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> rcu_state.cbovldnext |= !!rnp->cbovldmask;
> if (rnp->qsmask == 0) {
> @@ -2283,11 +2288,17 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct
> continue;
> }
> for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rnp->qsmask) {
> + struct rcu_data *rdp;
> + int ret;
> +
> rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> - if (f(rdp)) {
> + ret = f(rdp);
> + if (ret > 0) {
> mask |= rdp->grpmask;
> rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(rdp);
> }
> + if (ret < 0)
> + rsmask |= rdp->grpmask;
> }
> if (mask != 0) {
> /* Idle/offline CPUs, report (releases rnp->lock). */
> @@ -2296,6 +2307,9 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(int (*f)(struct
> /* Nothing to do here, so just drop the lock. */
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> }
> +
> + for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask(rnp, cpu, rsmask)
> + resched_cpu(cpu);
> }
> }
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists