linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/1] sched: defer completion task to online CPU

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z1y1RtE_z0b8mP7B@pavilion.home>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 23:29:26 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, paulmck@...nel.org, vlad.wing@...il.com,
	rcu@...r.kernel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
	neeraj.upadhyay@....com, urezki@...il.com,
	qiang.zhang1211@...il.com, Cheng-Jui.Wang@...iatek.com,
	leitao@...ian.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] sched: defer completion task to online CPU

Le Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 08:33:45PM +0000, Usama Arif a écrit :
> The following warning is being encountered at boot time:
> 
>            WARNING: CPU: 94 PID: 588 at kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1086 hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0
>            Modules linked in:
>            CPU: 94 UID: 0 PID: 588 Comm: migration/94 Not tainted
>            Stopper: multi_cpu_stop+0x0/0x120 <- stop_machine_cpuslocked+0x66/0xc0
>            RIP: 0010:hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0
>            Code: 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d e9 63 94 ea 00 0f 0b 48 83 c4 10 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d e9 39 fc 15 01 0f 0b e9 c1 fd ff ff <0f> 0b 48 8b 45 00 e9 59 ff ff ff f3 0f 1e fa 65 8b 05 1d ec e8 7e
>            RSP: 0018:ffffc900019cbcc8 EFLAGS: 00010046
>            RAX: ffff88bf449a4c40 RBX: 0000000000000082 RCX: 0000000000000001
>            RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffff88bf43224c80 RDI: ffff88bf449a4c40
>            RBP: ffff88bf449a4c80 R08: ffff888280970090 R09: 0000000000000000
>            R10: ffff88bf432252e0 R11: ffffffff811abf70 R12: ffff88bf449a4c40
>            R13: ffff88bf43234b28 R14: ffff88bf43224c80 R15: 0000000000000000
>            FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88bf44980000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>            CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 000000404b230001 CR4: 0000000000770ef0
>            PKRU: 55555554
>            Call Trace:
>             <TASK>
>             ? __warn+0xcf/0x1b0
>             ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0
>             ? report_bug+0x120/0x1a0
>             ? handle_bug+0x60/0x90
>             ? exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50
>             ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
>             ? register_refined_jiffies+0xb0/0xb0
>             ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0
>             ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x186/0x2d0
>             start_dl_timer+0xfc/0x150
>             enqueue_dl_entity+0x367/0x640
>             dl_server_start+0x53/0xa0
>             enqueue_task_fair+0x363/0x460
>             enqueue_task+0x3c/0x200
>             ttwu_do_activate+0x94/0x240
>             try_to_wake_up+0x315/0x600
>             complete+0x4b/0x80
>             ? stop_two_cpus+0x2f0/0x2f0
>             cpu_stopper_thread+0xb1/0x120
>             ? smpboot_unregister_percpu_thread+0xc0/0xc0
>             smpboot_thread_fn+0xf7/0x150
>             kthread+0x121/0x130
>             ? kthread_blkcg+0x40/0x40
>             ret_from_fork+0x39/0x50
>             ? kthread_blkcg+0x40/0x40
>             ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
>             </TASK>
> 
> It looks like completion that requires an hrtimer is being scheduled on a
> CPU that is not yet completely online. There have been other issues with
> hrtimer that have been fixed recently [1]. A possible fix would be to
> defer the completion to be done by a CPU already online.
> This bug might have been introduced in [2].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240913214205.12359-2-frederic@kernel.org/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/169972295552.3135.1094880886431606890.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/
> Reported-by: Vlad Poenaru <vlad.wing@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/completion.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> index 3561ab533dd4..b79d0868f997 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,13 @@ void complete_on_current_cpu(struct completion *x)
>  	return complete_with_flags(x, WF_CURRENT_CPU);
>  }
>  
> +static void complete_ipi(void *arg)
> +{
> +	struct completion *x = arg;
> +
> +	complete_with_flags(x, 0);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * complete: - signals a single thread waiting on this completion
>   * @x:  holds the state of this particular completion
> @@ -44,7 +51,23 @@ void complete_on_current_cpu(struct completion *x)
>   */
>  void complete(struct completion *x)
>  {
> -	complete_with_flags(x, 0);
> +	int cpu = get_cpu();
> +
> +	/* The scheduler might queue an ignored hrtimer. Defer the wake up
> +	 * to an online CPU instead.
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(cpu_is_offline(cpu))) {
> +		int target;
> +
> +		target = cpumask_any_and(housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_RCU),
> +					 cpu_online_mask);
> +
> +		smp_call_function_single(target, complete_ipi, x, 1);
> +		put_cpu();
> +	} else {
> +		put_cpu();
> +		complete_with_flags(x, 0);
> +	}

Right, we are doing something similar with RCU (swake_up_one_oneline() for
example). But I've never been satisfied with that bandaid. And now it's
spreading.

Should we force switch_hrtimer_base() to designate an online CPU for unpinned
timers if the current one is offline? And then send a retrigger_next_event()
with smp_call_function_async() with some special care?

Thomas, does that sound like a good way out?

Thanks.

>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete);
>  
> -- 
> 2.43.5
>