Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754859AbdDJPfE (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:35:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38054 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754795AbdDJPfA (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:35:00 -0400 X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "References" From: Jiri Slaby To: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Herbert Xu , Jiri Slaby Subject: [PATCH 3.12 123/142] padata: avoid race in reordering Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:33:24 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.12.2 In-Reply-To: References: In-Reply-To: References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3337 Lines: 98 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" 3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. =============== commit de5540d088fe97ad583cc7d396586437b32149a5 upstream. 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 Acked-by: Steffen Klassert Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby --- kernel/padata.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c index 07af2c95dcfe..86473271650f 100644 --- a/kernel/padata.c +++ b/kernel/padata.c @@ -190,19 +190,20 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd) reorder = &next_queue->reorder; + spin_lock(&reorder->lock); 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++; + spin_unlock(&reorder->lock); goto out; } + spin_unlock(&reorder->lock); if (__this_cpu_read(pd->pqueue->cpu_index) == next_queue->cpu_index) { padata = ERR_PTR(-ENODATA); -- 2.12.2