Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751774AbdFSO3C (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:29:02 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52048 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750950AbdFSO3B (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:29:01 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E9F57C04BD22
Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tcamuso@redhat.com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com E9F57C04BD22
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi: use rcu lock around call to
 intf->handlers->sender()
To: minyard@acm.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1497365651-7413-1-git-send-email-tcamuso@redhat.com>
 <1a359a04-f1da-0e2e-8663-6527e84dd5a3@acm.org>
 <613dc158-e3de-f713-019e-cf8c190e72be@acm.org>
 <cb961583-168f-6d7b-9d5b-2feb11646bcc@acm.org>
From: Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ad5a0d45-2af2-437d-8f16-c02dbd38ebb0@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:29:00 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cb961583-168f-6d7b-9d5b-2feb11646bcc@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:29:01 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 7601
Lines: 183

On 06/19/2017 09:31 AM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On 06/16/2017 07:15 AM, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> On 06/15/2017 10:54 AM, Corey Minyard wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2017 09:54 AM, Tony Camuso wrote:
>>>> A vendor with a system having more than 128 CPUs occasionally encounters a
>>>> crash during shutdown. This is not an easily reproduceable event, but the
>>>> vendor was able to provide the following analysis of the crash, which
>>>> exhibits the same footprint each time.
>>>>
>>>> crash> bt
>>>> PID: 0      TASK: ffff88017c70ce70  CPU: 5   COMMAND: "swapper/5"
>>>>   #0 [ffff88085c143ac8] machine_kexec at ffffffff81059c8b
>>>>   #1 [ffff88085c143b28] __crash_kexec at ffffffff811052e2
>>>>   #2 [ffff88085c143bf8] crash_kexec at ffffffff811053d0
>>>>   #3 [ffff88085c143c10] oops_end at ffffffff8168ef88
>>>>   #4 [ffff88085c143c38] no_context at ffffffff8167ebb3
>>>>   #5 [ffff88085c143c88] __bad_area_nosemaphore at ffffffff8167ec49
>>>>   #6 [ffff88085c143cd0] bad_area_nosemaphore at ffffffff8167edb3
>>>>   #7 [ffff88085c143ce0] __do_page_fault at ffffffff81691d1e
>>>>   #8 [ffff88085c143d40] do_page_fault at ffffffff81691ec5
>>>>   #9 [ffff88085c143d70] page_fault at ffffffff8168e188
>>>>      [exception RIP: unknown or invalid address]
>>>>      RIP: ffffffffa053c800  RSP: ffff88085c143e28  RFLAGS: 00010206
>>>>      RAX: ffff88017c72bfd8  RBX: ffff88017a8dc000  RCX: ffff8810588b5ac8
>>>>      RDX: ffff8810588b5a00  RSI: ffffffffa053c800  RDI: ffff8810588b5a00
>>>>      RBP: ffff88085c143e58   R8: ffff88017c70d408   R9: ffff88017a8dc000
>>>>      R10: 0000000000000002  R11: ffff88085c143da0  R12: ffff8810588b5ac8
>>>>      R13: 0000000000000100  R14: ffffffffa053c800  R15: ffff8810588b5a00
>>>>      ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
>>>> --- <IRQ stack> ---
>>>>      [exception RIP: cpuidle_enter_state+82]
>>>>      RIP: ffffffff81514192  RSP: ffff88017c72be50  RFLAGS: 00000202
>>>>      RAX: 0000001e4c3c6f16  RBX: 000000000000f8a0  RCX: 0000000000000018
>>>>      RDX: 0000000225c17d03  RSI: ffff88017c72bfd8  RDI: 0000001e4c3c6f16
>>>>      RBP: ffff88017c72be78   R8: 000000000000237e   R9: 0000000000000018
>>>>      R10: 0000000000002494  R11: 0000000000000001  R12: ffff88017c72be20
>>>>      R13: ffff88085c14f8e0  R14: 0000000000000082  R15: 0000001e4c3bb400
>>>>      ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffff10  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
>>>>
>>>> This is the corresponding stack trace
>>>>
>>>> It has crashed because the area pointed with RIP extracted from timer
>>>> element is already removed during a shutdown process.
>>>>
>>>> The function is smi_timeout().
>>>>
>>>> And we think ffff8810588b5a00 in RDX is a parameter struct smi_info
>>>>
>>>> crash> rd ffff8810588b5a00 20
>>>> ffff8810588b5a00:  ffff8810588b6000 0000000000000000 .`.X............
>>>> ffff8810588b5a10:  ffff880853264400 ffffffffa05417e0 .D&S......T.....
>>>> ffff8810588b5a20:  24a024a000000000 0000000000000000 .....$.$........
>>>> ffff8810588b5a30:  0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ................
>>>> ffff8810588b5a40:  ffffffffa053a040 ffffffffa053a060 @.S.....`.S.....
>>>> ffff8810588b5a50:  0000000000000000 0000000100000001 ................
>>>> ffff8810588b5a60:  0000000000000000 0000000000000e00 ................
>>>> ffff8810588b5a70:  ffffffffa053a580 ffffffffa053a6e0 ..S.......S.....
>>>> ffff8810588b5a80:  ffffffffa053a4a0 ffffffffa053a250 ..S.....P.S.....
>>>> ffff8810588b5a90:  0000000500000002 0000000000000000 ................
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the top of this area is already detroyed by someone.
>>>> But because of two reasonns we think this is struct smi_info
>>>>   1) The address included in between  ffff8810588b5a70 and ffff8810588b5a80:
>>>>    are inside of ipmi_si_intf.c  see crash> module ffff88085779d2c0
>>>>
>>>>   2) We've found the area which point this.
>>>>    It is offset 0x68 of  ffff880859df4000
>>>>
>>>> crash> rd  ffff880859df4000 100
>>>> ffff880859df4000:  0000000000000000 0000000000000001 ................
>>>> ffff880859df4010:  ffffffffa0535290 dead000000000200 .RS.............
>>>> ffff880859df4020:  ffff880859df4020 ffff880859df4020 @.Y.... @.Y....
>>>> ffff880859df4030:  0000000000000002 0000000000100010 ................
>>>> ffff880859df4040:  ffff880859df4040 ffff880859df4040 @@.Y....@@.Y....
>>>> ffff880859df4050:  0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ................
>>>> ffff880859df4060:  0000000000000000 ffff8810588b5a00 .........Z.X....
>>>> ffff880859df4070:  0000000000000001 ffff880859df4078 ........x@.Y....
>>>>
>>>>   If we regards it as struct ipmi_smi in shutdown process
>>>>   it looks consistent.
>>>>
>>>> The remedy for this apparent race is affixed below.
>>>
>>> I think you are right about this problem, but in_shutdown is checked already
>>> a bit before when newmsg is extracted from the list.  Wouldn't it be better
>>> to add the rcu_read_lock() region starting right before the previous
>>> in_shutdown check to after the send?  That would avoid a leak in this
>>> case.
>>
>> While lying awake unable to sleep, I realized that you can't call the
>> sender function while holding rcu_read_lock().  That will break RT,
>> because you can't claim a mutex while holding rcu_read_lock(),
>> and the sender function will claim normal spinlocks.
>>
>> So I need to think about this a bit.
>>
> 
> I was wrong about this.  An rcu_read_lock() around the whole thing should
> be all that is required to fix this.  I can do a patch, or you can, if you like.
> 
> Thanks again for pointing this out.
> 
> -corey

Is this what you have in mind?

---
  drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 11 +++++++++--
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
index 9f69995..e20f8d7 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
@@ -3880,6 +3880,9 @@ static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val)
  	 */
  	if (!run_to_completion)
  		spin_lock_irqsave(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags);
+
+	rcu_read_lock();
+
  	if (intf->curr_msg == NULL && !intf->in_shutdown) {
  		struct list_head *entry = NULL;
  
@@ -3894,11 +3897,15 @@ static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val)
  			newmsg = list_entry(entry, struct ipmi_smi_msg, link);
  			intf->curr_msg = newmsg;
  		}
+
+		if (newmsg)
+			intf->handlers->sender(intf->send_info, newmsg);
  	}
+
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
  	if (!run_to_completion)
  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags);
-	if (newmsg)
-		intf->handlers->sender(intf->send_info, newmsg);
  
  	handle_new_recv_msgs(intf);
  }
-- 
1.8.3.1



> 
>> -corey
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -corey
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 9 +++++++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>>> index 9f69995..577509f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
>>>> @@ -3897,8 +3897,13 @@ static void smi_recv_tasklet(unsigned long val)
>>>>       }
>>>>       if (!run_to_completion)
>>>>           spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intf->xmit_msgs_lock, flags);
>>>> -    if (newmsg)
>>>> -        intf->handlers->sender(intf->send_info, newmsg);
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (newmsg) {
>>>> +        rcu_read_lock();
>>>> +        if (!intf->in_shutdown)
>>>> +            intf->handlers->sender(intf->send_info, newmsg);
>>>> +        rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> +    }
>>>>         handle_new_recv_msgs(intf);
>>>>   }
>>>
>>>
>>
>