| 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: <20250224111914.2214326-12-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 06:19:05 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Uday Shankar <ushankar@...estorage.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
asml.silence@...il.com,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 12/20] io-wq: backoff when retrying worker creation
From: Uday Shankar <ushankar@...estorage.com>
[ Upstream commit 13918315c5dc5a515926c8799042ea6885c2b734 ]
When io_uring submission goes async for the first time on a given task,
we'll try to create a worker thread to handle the submission. Creating
this worker thread can fail due to various transient conditions, such as
an outstanding signal in the forking thread, so we have retry logic with
a limit of 3 retries. However, this retry logic appears to be too
aggressive/fast - we've observed a thread blowing through the retry
limit while having the same outstanding signal the whole time. Here's an
excerpt of some tracing that demonstrates the issue:
First, signal 26 is generated for the process. It ends up getting routed
to thread 92942.
0) cbd-92284 /* signal_generate: sig=26 errno=0 code=-2 comm=psblkdASD pid=92934 grp=1 res=0 */
This causes create_io_thread in the signalled thread to fail with
ERESTARTNOINTR, and thus a retry is queued.
13) task_th-92942 /* io_uring_queue_async_work: ring 000000007325c9ae, request 0000000080c96d8e, user_data 0x0, opcode URING_CMD, flags 0x8240001, normal queue, work 000000006e96dd3f */
13) task_th-92942 io_wq_enqueue() {
13) task_th-92942 _raw_spin_lock();
13) task_th-92942 io_wq_activate_free_worker();
13) task_th-92942 _raw_spin_lock();
13) task_th-92942 create_io_worker() {
13) task_th-92942 __kmalloc_cache_noprof();
13) task_th-92942 __init_swait_queue_head();
13) task_th-92942 kprobe_ftrace_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 get_kprobe();
13) task_th-92942 aggr_pre_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 pre_handler_kretprobe();
13) task_th-92942 /* create_enter: (create_io_thread+0x0/0x50) fn=0xffffffff8172c0e0 arg=0xffff888996bb69c0 node=-1 */
13) task_th-92942 } /* aggr_pre_handler */
...
13) task_th-92942 } /* copy_process */
13) task_th-92942 } /* create_io_thread */
13) task_th-92942 kretprobe_rethook_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 /* create_exit: (create_io_worker+0x8a/0x1a0 <- create_io_thread) arg1=0xfffffffffffffdff */
13) task_th-92942 } /* kretprobe_rethook_handler */
13) task_th-92942 queue_work_on() {
...
The CPU is then handed to a kworker to process the queued retry:
------------------------------------------
13) task_th-92942 => kworker-54154
------------------------------------------
13) kworker-54154 io_workqueue_create() {
13) kworker-54154 io_queue_worker_create() {
13) kworker-54154 task_work_add() {
13) kworker-54154 wake_up_state() {
13) kworker-54154 try_to_wake_up() {
13) kworker-54154 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave();
13) kworker-54154 _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore();
13) kworker-54154 } /* try_to_wake_up */
13) kworker-54154 } /* wake_up_state */
13) kworker-54154 kick_process();
13) kworker-54154 } /* task_work_add */
13) kworker-54154 } /* io_queue_worker_create */
13) kworker-54154 } /* io_workqueue_create */
And then we immediately switch back to the original task to try creating
a worker again. This fails, because the original task still hasn't
handled its signal.
-----------------------------------------
13) kworker-54154 => task_th-92942
------------------------------------------
13) task_th-92942 create_worker_cont() {
13) task_th-92942 kprobe_ftrace_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 get_kprobe();
13) task_th-92942 aggr_pre_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 pre_handler_kretprobe();
13) task_th-92942 /* create_enter: (create_io_thread+0x0/0x50) fn=0xffffffff8172c0e0 arg=0xffff888996bb69c0 node=-1 */
13) task_th-92942 } /* aggr_pre_handler */
13) task_th-92942 } /* kprobe_ftrace_handler */
13) task_th-92942 create_io_thread() {
13) task_th-92942 copy_process() {
13) task_th-92942 task_active_pid_ns();
13) task_th-92942 _raw_spin_lock_irq();
13) task_th-92942 recalc_sigpending();
13) task_th-92942 _raw_spin_lock_irq();
13) task_th-92942 } /* copy_process */
13) task_th-92942 } /* create_io_thread */
13) task_th-92942 kretprobe_rethook_handler() {
13) task_th-92942 /* create_exit: (create_worker_cont+0x35/0x1b0 <- create_io_thread) arg1=0xfffffffffffffdff */
13) task_th-92942 } /* kretprobe_rethook_handler */
13) task_th-92942 io_worker_release();
13) task_th-92942 queue_work_on() {
13) task_th-92942 clear_pending_if_disabled();
13) task_th-92942 __queue_work() {
13) task_th-92942 } /* __queue_work */
13) task_th-92942 } /* queue_work_on */
13) task_th-92942 } /* create_worker_cont */
The pattern repeats another couple times until we blow through the retry
counter, at which point we give up. All outstanding work is canceled,
and the io_uring command which triggered all this is failed with
ECANCELED:
13) task_th-92942 io_acct_cancel_pending_work() {
...
13) task_th-92942 /* io_uring_complete: ring 000000007325c9ae, req 0000000080c96d8e, user_data 0x0, result -125, cflags 0x0 extra1 0 extra2 0 */
Finally, the task gets around to processing its outstanding signal 26,
but it's too late.
13) task_th-92942 /* signal_deliver: sig=26 errno=0 code=-2 sa_handler=59566a0 sa_flags=14000000 */
Try to address this issue by adding a small scaling delay when retrying
worker creation. This should give the forking thread time to handle its
signal in the above case. This isn't a particularly satisfying solution,
as sufficiently paradoxical scheduling would still have us hitting the
same issue, and I'm open to suggestions for something better. But this
is likely to prevent this (already rare) issue from hitting in practice.
Signed-off-by: Uday Shankar <ushankar@...estorage.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250208-wq_retry-v2-1-4f6f5041d303@purestorage.com
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
io_uring/io-wq.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/io-wq.c b/io_uring/io-wq.c
index a1e31723c9ed6..93f3e4d1df853 100644
--- a/io_uring/io-wq.c
+++ b/io_uring/io-wq.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ struct io_worker {
union {
struct rcu_head rcu;
- struct work_struct work;
+ struct delayed_work work;
};
};
@@ -771,6 +771,18 @@ static inline bool io_should_retry_thread(struct io_worker *worker, long err)
}
}
+static void queue_create_worker_retry(struct io_worker *worker)
+{
+ /*
+ * We only bother retrying because there's a chance that the
+ * failure to create a worker is due to some temporary condition
+ * in the forking task (e.g. outstanding signal); give the task
+ * some time to clear that condition.
+ */
+ schedule_delayed_work(&worker->work,
+ msecs_to_jiffies(worker->init_retries * 5));
+}
+
static void create_worker_cont(struct callback_head *cb)
{
struct io_worker *worker;
@@ -810,12 +822,13 @@ static void create_worker_cont(struct callback_head *cb)
/* re-create attempts grab a new worker ref, drop the existing one */
io_worker_release(worker);
- schedule_work(&worker->work);
+ queue_create_worker_retry(worker);
}
static void io_workqueue_create(struct work_struct *work)
{
- struct io_worker *worker = container_of(work, struct io_worker, work);
+ struct io_worker *worker = container_of(work, struct io_worker,
+ work.work);
struct io_wq_acct *acct = io_wq_get_acct(worker);
if (!io_queue_worker_create(worker, acct, create_worker_cont))
@@ -856,8 +869,8 @@ static bool create_io_worker(struct io_wq *wq, int index)
kfree(worker);
goto fail;
} else {
- INIT_WORK(&worker->work, io_workqueue_create);
- schedule_work(&worker->work);
+ INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&worker->work, io_workqueue_create);
+ queue_create_worker_retry(worker);
}
return true;
--
2.39.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists