| 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: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:47:33 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Michal Koutný
<mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset hotplug processing
synchronous
On 4/3/24 10:26, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 03/04/24 09:38, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 4/3/24 08:02, Michal Koutný wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:30:11AM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, there is a potential that a cpus_read_lock() may be called leading to
>>>> deadlock. So unless we reverse the current cgroup_mutex --> cpu_hotplug_lock
>>>> ordering, it is not safe to call cgroup_transfer_tasks() directly.
>>> I see that cgroup_transfer_tasks() has the only user -- cpuset. What
>>> about bending it for the specific use like:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>>> index 34aaf0e87def..64deb7212c5c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
>>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ struct cgroup *cgroup_get_from_fd(int fd);
>>> struct cgroup *cgroup_v1v2_get_from_fd(int fd);
>>>
>>> int cgroup_attach_task_all(struct task_struct *from, struct task_struct *);
>>> -int cgroup_transfer_tasks(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from);
>>> +int cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from);
>>>
>>> int cgroup_add_dfl_cftypes(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cftype *cfts);
>>> int cgroup_add_legacy_cftypes(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cftype *cfts);
>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c
>>> index 520a11cb12f4..f97025858c7a 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup-v1.c
>>> @@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cgroup_attach_task_all);
>>> *
>>> * Return: %0 on success or a negative errno code on failure
>>> */
>>> -int cgroup_transfer_tasks(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from)
>>> +int cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from)
>>> {
>>> DEFINE_CGROUP_MGCTX(mgctx);
>>> struct cgrp_cset_link *link;
>>> @@ -106,9 +106,11 @@ int cgroup_transfer_tasks(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from)
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> - cgroup_lock();
>>> -
>>> - cgroup_attach_lock(true);
>>> + /* The locking rules serve specific purpose of v1 cpuset hotplug
>>> + * migration, see hotplug_update_tasks_legacy() and
>>> + * cgroup_attach_lock() */
>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&cgroup_mutex);
>>> + lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>>> + percpu_down_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
>>>
>>> /* all tasks in @from are being moved, all csets are source */
>>> spin_lock_irq(&css_set_lock);
>>> @@ -144,8 +146,7 @@ int cgroup_transfer_tasks(struct cgroup *to, struct cgroup *from)
>>> } while (task && !ret);
>>> out_err:
>>> cgroup_migrate_finish(&mgctx);
>>> - cgroup_attach_unlock(true);
>>> - cgroup_unlock();
>>> + percpu_up_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> index 13d27b17c889..94fb8b26f038 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> @@ -4331,7 +4331,7 @@ static void remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset(struct cpuset *cs)
>>> nodes_empty(parent->mems_allowed))
>>> parent = parent_cs(parent);
>>>
>>> - if (cgroup_transfer_tasks(parent->css.cgroup, cs->css.cgroup)) {
>>> + if (cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked(parent->css.cgroup, cs->css.cgroup)) {
>>> pr_err("cpuset: failed to transfer tasks out of empty cpuset ");
>>> pr_cont_cgroup_name(cs->css.cgroup);
>>> pr_cont("\n");
>>> @@ -4376,21 +4376,9 @@ hotplug_update_tasks_legacy(struct cpuset *cs,
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Move tasks to the nearest ancestor with execution resources,
>>> - * This is full cgroup operation which will also call back into
>>> - * cpuset. Execute it asynchronously using workqueue.
>>> */
>>> - if (is_empty && css_tryget_online(&cs->css)) {
>>> - struct cpuset_remove_tasks_struct *s;
>>> -
>>> - s = kzalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!s)) {
>>> - css_put(&cs->css);
>>> - return;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - s->cs = cs;
>>> - INIT_WORK(&s->work, cpuset_migrate_tasks_workfn);
>>> - schedule_work(&s->work);
>>> + if (is_empty)
>>> + remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset(cs);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>> It still won't work because of the possibility of mutiple tasks
>> involving in a circular locking dependency. The hotplug thread always
>> acquire the cpu_hotplug_lock first before acquiring cpuset_mutex or
>> cgroup_mtuex in this case (cpu_hotplug_lock --> cgroup_mutex). Other
>> tasks calling into cgroup code will acquire the pair in the order
>> cgroup_mutex --> cpu_hotplug_lock. This may lead to a deadlock if these
>> 2 locking sequences happen at the same time. Lockdep will certainly
>> spill out a splat because of this.
>> So unless we change all the relevant
>> cgroup code to the new cpu_hotplug_lock --> cgroup_mutex locking order,
>> the hotplug code can't call cgroup_transfer_tasks() directly.
>>
> IIUC that was Thomas' suggestion [1], but I can't tell yet how bad it would
> be to change cgroup_lock() to also do a cpus_read_lock().
Changing the locking order is certainly doable. I have taken a cursory
look at it and at least the following files need to be changed:
kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
kernel/cgroup/legacy_freezer.c
mm/memcontrol.c
That requires a lot more testing to make sure that there won't be a
regression. Given that the call to cgroup_transfer_tasks() should be
rare these days as it will only apply in the case of cgroup v1 under
certain condtion, I am not sure this requirement justifies making such
extensive changes. So I kind of defer it until we reach a consensus that
it is the right thing to do.
Cheers,
Longman
>
> Also, I gave Michal's patch a try and it looks like it's introducing a
> cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem -> cpuset_mutex
> ordering from
> cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked()
> `\
> percpu_down_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> cgroup_migrate()
> `\
> cgroup_migrate_execute()
> `\
> ss->can_attach() // cpuset_can_attach()
> `\
> mutex_lock(&cpuset_mutex);
>
> which is invalid, see below.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87cyrfe7a3.ffs@tglx/
>
> [ 77.627915] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 77.628419] 6.9.0-rc1-00042-g844178b616c7-dirty #23 Tainted: G W
> [ 77.629035] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 77.629548] cpuhp/2/24 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 77.629946] ffffffff82d680b0 (cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem){++++}-{0:0}, at: cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked+0x123/0x450
> [ 77.630851]
> [ 77.630851] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 77.631397] ffffffff82d6c088 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cpuset_update_active_cpus+0x352/0xca0
> [ 77.632169]
> [ 77.632169] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 77.632169]
> [ 77.632891]
> [ 77.632891] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 77.633521]
> [ 77.633521] -> #1 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 77.634028] lock_acquire+0xc0/0x2d0
> [ 77.634393] __mutex_lock+0xaa/0x710
> [ 77.634751] cpuset_can_attach+0x6d/0x2c0
> [ 77.635146] cgroup_migrate_execute+0x6f/0x520
> [ 77.635565] cgroup_attach_task+0x2e2/0x450
> [ 77.635989] __cgroup1_procs_write.isra.0+0xfd/0x150
> [ 77.636440] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x127/0x1c0
> [ 77.636917] vfs_write+0x2b0/0x540
> [ 77.637330] ksys_write+0x70/0xf0
> [ 77.637707] int80_emulation+0xf8/0x1b0
> [ 77.638183] asm_int80_emulation+0x1a/0x20
> [ 77.638636]
> [ 77.638636] -> #0 (cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem){++++}-{0:0}:
> [ 77.639321] check_prev_add+0xeb/0xb20
> [ 77.639751] __lock_acquire+0x12ac/0x16d0
> [ 77.640345] lock_acquire+0xc0/0x2d0
> [ 77.640903] percpu_down_write+0x33/0x260
> [ 77.641347] cgroup_transfer_tasks_locked+0x123/0x450
> [ 77.641826] cpuset_update_active_cpus+0x782/0xca0
> [ 77.642268] sched_cpu_deactivate+0x1ad/0x1d0
> [ 77.642677] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x16b/0x6b0
> [ 77.643098] cpuhp_thread_fun+0x1ba/0x240
> [ 77.643488] smpboot_thread_fn+0xd8/0x1d0
> [ 77.643873] kthread+0xce/0x100
> [ 77.644209] ret_from_fork+0x2f/0x50
> [ 77.644626] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [ 77.645084]
> [ 77.645084] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 77.645084]
> [ 77.645829] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 77.645829]
> [ 77.646356] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 77.646748] ---- ----
> [ 77.647143] lock(cpuset_mutex);
> [ 77.647529] lock(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> [ 77.648193] lock(cpuset_mutex);
> [ 77.648767] lock(cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> [ 77.649216]
> [ 77.649216] *** DEADLOCK ***
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists