| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Zp7G4EfISRwlmmIT@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 13:53:52 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
lkmm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [mm] 24e44cc22a:
BUG:KCSAN:data-race_in_pcpu_alloc_noprof/pcpu_block_update_hint_alloc
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:27:48AM -0700, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:03:00AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 07:52:22AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 10:47:30AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > This looks like a data race because we read pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages out
> > > > of the lock for a best effort checking, @Tejun, maybe you could confirm
> > > > on this?
> > >
> > > That does sound plausible.
> > >
> > > > - if (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Checks pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages out of the pcpu_lock, data races may
> > > > + * occur but this is just a best-effort checking, everything is synced
> > > > + * in pcpu_balance_work.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (data_race(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages) < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
> > > > pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
> > >
> > > Would it be better to use READ/WRITE_ONCE() for the variable?
> > >
> >
> > For READ/WRITE_ONCE(), we will need to replace all write accesses and
> > all out-of-lock read accesses to pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages, like below.
> > It's better in the sense that it doesn't rely on compiler behaviors on
> > data races, not sure about the performance impact though.
> >
>
> I think a better alternative is we can move it up into the lock under
> area_found. The value gets updated as part of pcpu_alloc_area() as the
> code above populates percpu memory that is already allocated.
>
Not sure I followed what exactly you suggested here because I'm not
familiar with the logic, but a simpler version would be:
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 20d91af8c033..fc54d27e5786 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1891,8 +1891,10 @@ void __percpu *pcpu_alloc_noprof(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved,
mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
}
- if (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
- pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
+ scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &pcpu_lock) {
+ if (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
+ pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
+ }
/* clear the areas and return address relative to base address */
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
I.e. just locking while checking.
Regards,
Boqun
> We should probably annotate pcpu_update_empty_pages() with:
> lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
>
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> >
> > ----->8
> > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> > index 20d91af8c033..729e8188238b 100644
> > --- a/mm/percpu.c
> > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > @@ -570,7 +570,8 @@ static void pcpu_isolate_chunk(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk)
> >
> > if (!chunk->isolated) {
> > chunk->isolated = true;
> > - pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages -= chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages,
> > + pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages - chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages);
> > }
> > list_move(&chunk->list, &pcpu_chunk_lists[pcpu_to_depopulate_slot]);
> > }
> > @@ -581,7 +582,8 @@ static void pcpu_reintegrate_chunk(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk)
> >
> > if (chunk->isolated) {
> > chunk->isolated = false;
> > - pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages += chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages,
> > + pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages + chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages);
> > pcpu_chunk_relocate(chunk, -1);
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -599,7 +601,8 @@ static inline void pcpu_update_empty_pages(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int nr)
> > {
> > chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages += nr;
> > if (chunk != pcpu_reserved_chunk && !chunk->isolated)
> > - pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages += nr;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages,
> > + pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages + nr);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1891,7 +1894,7 @@ void __percpu *pcpu_alloc_noprof(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved,
> > mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> > }
> >
> > - if (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
> > + if (READ_ONCE(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages) < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
> > pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
> >
> > /* clear the areas and return address relative to base address */
> > @@ -2754,7 +2757,7 @@ void __init pcpu_setup_first_chunk(const struct pcpu_alloc_info *ai,
> > tmp_addr = (unsigned long)base_addr + static_size + ai->reserved_size;
> > pcpu_first_chunk = pcpu_alloc_first_chunk(tmp_addr, dyn_size);
> >
> > - pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages = pcpu_first_chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages;
> > + WRITE_ONCE(pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages, pcpu_first_chunk->nr_empty_pop_pages);
> > pcpu_chunk_relocate(pcpu_first_chunk, -1);
> >
> > /* include all regions of the first chunk */
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists