[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h6e2xdg1.ffs@tglx>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 18:56:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, peterz@...radead.org,
jpoimboe@...nel.org, jbaron@...mai.com, ardb@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, xrivendell7@...il.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux kernel bug] WARNING in static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked
On Sun, Jun 09 2024 at 18:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09 2024 at 10:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Well the bug is there to detect inconsistency and that clearly works :)
>
> But I clearly can't read, because the jump label operations are
> serialized via jump_label_mutex. Hrm...
Ok. Now I found if for real. It's in the jump label core:
CPU0 CPU1
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 1
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
if (val == 1)
return false;
jump_label_lock();
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
--> key->enabled == 0
__jump_label_update()
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 0
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
--> key->enabled == -1 <- FAIL
static_key_slow_try_dec() is buggy. It needs similar logic as
static_key_slow_try_inc() to work correctly.
It's not only the 0, key->enabled can be -1 when the other CPU is in the
slow path of enabling it.
I'll send a patch after testing it.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists