Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965813AbdCXOQu (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:16:50 -0400 Received: from orcrist.hmeau.com ([104.223.48.154]:42756 "EHLO deadmen.hmeau.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965734AbdCXOQY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:16:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:16:08 +0800 From: Herbert Xu To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jason@zx2c4.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] padata: avoid race in reordering Message-ID: <20170324141608.GA15370@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170323112443.30843-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> X-Newsgroups: apana.lists.os.linux.cryptoapi,apana.lists.os.linux.kernel,apana.lists.os.linux.netdev Organization: Core User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2464 Lines: 61 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Under extremely heavy uses of padata, crashes occur, and with list > debugging turned on, this happens instead: > > [87487.298728] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 882 at lib/list_debug.c:33 > __list_add+0xae/0x130 > [87487.301868] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next > (ffffb17abfc043d0), but was ffff8dba70872c80. (prev=ffff8dba70872b00). > [87487.339011] [] dump_stack+0x68/0xa3 > [87487.342198] [] ? console_unlock+0x281/0x6d0 > [87487.345364] [] __warn+0xff/0x140 > [87487.348513] [] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50 > [87487.351659] [] __list_add+0xae/0x130 > [87487.354772] [] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x70 > [87487.357915] [] padata_reorder+0x1e6/0x420 > [87487.361084] [] padata_do_serial+0xa5/0x120 > > padata_reorder calls list_add_tail with the list to which its adding > locked, which seems correct: > > spin_lock(&squeue->serial.lock); > list_add_tail(&padata->list, &squeue->serial.list); > spin_unlock(&squeue->serial.lock); > > This therefore leaves only place where such inconsistency could occur: > if padata->list is added at the same time on two different threads. > This pdata pointer comes from the function call to > padata_get_next(pd), which has in it the following block: > > next_queue = per_cpu_ptr(pd->pqueue, cpu); > padata = NULL; > reorder = &next_queue->reorder; > if (!list_empty(&reorder->list)) { > padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next, > struct padata_priv, list); > spin_lock(&reorder->lock); > list_del_init(&padata->list); > atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects); > spin_unlock(&reorder->lock); > > pd->processed++; > > goto out; > } > out: > return padata; > > I strongly suspect that the problem here is that two threads can race > on reorder list. Even though the deletion is locked, call to > list_entry is not locked, which means it's feasible that two threads > pick up the same padata object and subsequently call list_add_tail on > them at the same time. The fix is thus be hoist that lock outside of > that block. > > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld Patch applied. Thanks. -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt