linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if delayed

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z4A63zjuCwTryrml@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:08:47 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
Cc: jiangshanlai@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: warn if delayed_work is queued to an offlined
 cpu.

On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:18:29PM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> delayed_work submitted to an offlined cpu, will not get executed,
> after the specified delay if the cpu remains offline. If the cpu
> never comes online the work will never get executed.
> checking for online cpu in __queue_delayed_work, does not sound
> like a good idea because to do this reliably we need hotplug lock
> and since work may be submitted from atomic contexts, we would
> have to use cpus_read_trylock. But if trylock fails we would queue
> the work on any cpu and this may not be optimal because our intended
> cpu might still be online.
> 
> Putting a WARN_ON for an already offlined cpu, will indicate users
> of queue_delayed_work_on, if they are (wrongly) trying to queue
> delayed_work on offlined cpu.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
> ---
>  kernel/workqueue.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 8e0bb3c608239..10878b5e3d74f 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2508,6 +2508,7 @@ static void __queue_delayed_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> +	WARN_ON(cpu != WORK_CPU_UNBOUND && !cpu_online(cpu));

Can we use WARN_ON_ONCE() instead?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun