Message-ID: <20240217081046.5u6dgwdoano2axpd@M910t>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:10:46 +0800
From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@...wei.com>
To: Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>
CC: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Changbin Du
	<changbin.du@...wei.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-modules@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Xiaoyi Su
	<suxiaoyi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] modules: wait do_free_init correctly

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 09:18:09AM -0500, Eric Chanudet wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:21:03AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:40:38AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:53:58AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:03:04AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > > > > The commit 1a7b7d922081 ("modules: Use vmalloc special flag") moves
> > > > > do_free_init() into a global workqueue instead of call_rcu(). So now
> > > > > rcu_barrier() can not ensure that do_free_init has completed. We should
> > > > > wait it via flush_work().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Without this fix, we still could encounter false positive reports in
> > > > > W+X checking, and rcu synchronization is unnecessary.
> 
> The comment in do_init_module(), just before
> schedule_work(&init_free_wq), mentioning rcu_barrier(), should be
> amended as well.
>
yes, I'll update it as well.

> > > > 
> > > > You didn't answer my question, which should be documented in the commit log.
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean we never freed modules init because of this? If so then
> > > > your commit log should clearly explain that. It should also explain that
> > > > if true (you have to verify) then it means we were no longer saving
> > > > the memory we wished to save, and that is important for distributions
> > > > which do want to save anything on memory. You may want to do a general
> > > > estimate on how much that means these days on any desktop / server.
> > >
> > > Actually, I have explained it in commit msg. It's not about saving memory. The
> > > synchronization here is just to ensure the module init's been freed before
> > > doing W+X checking. The problem is that the current implementation is wrong,
> > > rcu_barrier() cannot guarantee that. So we can encounter false positive reports.
> > > But anyway, the module init will be freed, and it's just a timing related issue.
> > 
> > Your desciption here is better than the commit log.
> 
> I saw this problem using a PREEMPT_RT kernel as well. Setting DEBUG_WX=n
> stills show a significant delay due to the rcu_barrier:
>   [    0.291444] Freeing unused kernel memory: 5568K
>   [    0.402442] Run /sbin/init as init process
> 
> The same delay is shorter using linux-next, but still noticeable
> (DEBUG_WX=n):
>   [    0.384362] Freeing unused kernel memory: 14080K
>   [    0.413423] Run /sbin/init as init process
> 
> Matching trace_event=rcu:rcu_barrier trace:
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384391: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt Begin cpu -1 remaining 0 # 4
>          systemd-1       [002] d..1.     0.384394: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt Inc1 cpu -1 remaining 0 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384395: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt NQ cpu 0 remaining 2 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [001] d.h2.     0.384407: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 2 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384408: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 1 remaining 3 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384409: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt NQ cpu 2 remaining 3 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [003] d.h2.     0.384416: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 3 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384418: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 3 remaining 4 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [004] d.h2.     0.384428: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 4 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384430: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 4 remaining 5 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [005] d.h2.     0.384438: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 5 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384441: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 5 remaining 6 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [006] d.h2.     0.384450: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 6 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384452: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 6 remaining 7 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [007] d.h2.     0.384461: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt IRQ cpu -1 remaining 7 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.384463: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt OnlineQ cpu 7 remaining 8 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [004] ..s1.     0.385339: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt CB cpu -1 remaining 5 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [007] ..s1.     0.397335: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt CB cpu -1 remaining 4 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [003] ..s1.     0.397337: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt CB cpu -1 remaining 3 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [005] ..s1.     0.401336: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt CB cpu -1 remaining 2 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [006] ..s1.     0.401336: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt CB cpu -1 remaining 1 # 1
>           <idle>-0       [001] .Ns1.     0.413338: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt LastCB cpu -1 remaining 0 # 1
>          systemd-1       [002] .....     0.413351: rcu_barrier: rcu_preempt Inc2 cpu -1 remaining 0 # 1
> 
> With this patch the delay is no longer there:
>   [    0.377662] Freeing unused kernel memory: 14080K
>   [    0.377767] Run /sbin/init as init process
> 
Thanks for your info. We encounter similar delay in our scenario. I'll add your
testing data in commit msg.

> AFAIU, for the race to happen, module_alloc() needs to create a W+X
> mapping (neither x86 nor arm64 does) and debug_checkwx() has to happen
> before module_enable_nx() in complete_formation(), I didn't get a
> reproducer so far.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -- 
> Eric Chanudet
> 

-- 
Cheers,
Changbin Du

Powered by blists - more mailing lists