linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Fix lockup when RCU reader used while IRQ exiting

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: <aEdttj_vcdIEsKxG@pavilion.home>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 01:26:46 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
	Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Fix lockup when RCU reader used while IRQ
 exiting

Le Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 12:49:06PM -0700, Boqun Feng a écrit :
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 02:01:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > During rcu_read_unlock_special(), if this happens during irq_exit(), we
> > can lockup if an IPI is issued. This is because the IPI itself triggers
> > the irq_exit() path causing a recursive lock up.
> > 
> > This is precisely what Xiongfeng found when invoking a BPF program on
> > the trace_tick_stop() tracepoint As shown in the trace below. Fix by
> > using context-tracking to tell us if we're still in an IRQ.
> > context-tracking keeps track of the IRQ until after the tracepoint, so
> > it cures the issues.
> > 
> 
> This does fix the issue, but do we know when the CPU will eventually
> report a QS after this fix? I believe we still want to report a QS as
> early as possible in this case?

If !ct_in_irq(), we issue a self-IPI, then preempt_schedule_irq() will
call into schedule() and report a QS (if preempt/bh is not disabled, otherwise
this is delayed to preempt_enable() or local_bh_enable() issuing preempt_schedule())

If ct_in_irq(), we are already in an IRQ, then it's the same as above
eventually.

Thanks.

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs