Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:206:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp1354982pxj; Wed, 19 May 2021 04:18:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQdlQvle+K0BK8nHsQnuGIX7XXQ4sjleCJpdGI1VGKuBXQql9H/QaXaPF5JfUxA2kvbaHz X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1aaa:: with SMTP id l10mr10745741ilv.29.1621423095491; Wed, 19 May 2021 04:18:15 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1621423095; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=L1EyV8JnIFii/okkb1MPUpOiJ1eOjVx3sHq6XrFgnq2P3YDZf+I6jS1snt25oSMl8d hqtmRWaPmBgB4mE0Va/b7duvSwQi8Shee1LAWsHX9t8RgFdjssJFySOfNvQPpCeLs8M4 n79r8279yN3MLzwgBK5zqubwfhniUQjCxP9aaocH/93rzBSLj4EhV3snnhzgm2pm895T KioWcw3EQqTsVyZiPc91zSu/vVd0H64Zyfr/Z2O4+liJOQRasNsHoZieei3x8fPJhimf MQgO3zBV8E3BLLU9cZr6US9Vrf3o+AXrbhwpW+gV9qyyRcetMJr02aZKYEnrvd2RS/kA fjbQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=i+caL8ShiQkdtMoHXmzKLEMm3uWefe7QerqBVwe/RcU=; b=OadlbM1WQbQP4Y//1mrxQLnaVwU5NOKEe6OTmp8fL1gdmLod1TpSrwiUiT+w3PmBG6 xs6zZ3zKY63E1EvdL4o+6mIQpatXINfRFs1FvB26kTQDMWgbBfCR1VadAZ/lMurX9eD+ DB1kE6FDz9EyaudMyGoAjvBC5E745QlX0seiR8uM78nyoFDSzakbTxZ2Bnv8FgI6dG4+ VG6SlwGBuvYTq7OJzoJW0cxD2m6Qt8YAtQZxTjHIjLXhzqV/Bg5AQrGcvFWRZ3aGiVtk OuPaGsfqnl7ruK5IHbCZlBeKmT26c76QRRh56T7/4st7OazCKL+JFjs4qPus1IMSIFYe mq8w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=aL9hDx4h; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q186si8506653iof.83.2021.05.19.04.18.02; Wed, 19 May 2021 04:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20161025 header.b=aL9hDx4h; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345447AbhERBt1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 17 May 2021 21:49:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52852 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233295AbhERBt1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2021 21:49:27 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA26C061573 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com with SMTP id c14so11127757ybr.5 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i+caL8ShiQkdtMoHXmzKLEMm3uWefe7QerqBVwe/RcU=; b=aL9hDx4hO8PCt/1n6zXbQpuLzERaeSDJebpTk7lHuydwk3RZJM1cj/0zk+cfom+Pe8 QjkK3gT9IrtfKJ5rbLcvRRPqLEaIY7+8ozxADMH7sdms4o2Se9NreNt8P3l/zK9rr7T1 QqwbIIEq+xnsupl9bY3OKYcFWq1m6Jrk6S6NdM7FSkgLN5go7nrXbtFjzbvZpxlujhlC W77OECIZVvGOSf9t8Z0qGao0pRLW9swmluAq95NJB7+0LSKDRa2zoEGXzBcUydhSCtPj FCaqoFowZhBwraNmWLgtQMRDO8p7RRgK2ncUTcRAVtc4JyfLuuKfKC8n2fW1Iu0OoWP2 4FmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i+caL8ShiQkdtMoHXmzKLEMm3uWefe7QerqBVwe/RcU=; b=TtJjivup9eVpcoDYfOBl4nbkp4HoU2PSzTO+dbIB47lBR5zf1jwQIvPq1RlAO5iadS PqlKQ8ckuww0A3EzTu+2OEXStF2o34yAiuiseUHz1psObJbtDfg2WwGfWobSNptVJhLp 7UPZn18IJMJf4gPnpZccbBGcI9FcM97XzG3elc4SkaJKIWiwFssF6WjApbok4iiW6xFl Vo8TiSIZTuevLwMNcaeNZFhOVYLljncZ7SNT5u5fGbFP878wuxmJ/s6/gK1V5dIok4vw rN2KKcQ5bS3sGzjeZOs76a3MQJSBXj3ZYxKBK+NtrLfRIsat46PGfDygqH5drncegQKu 6Naw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532fzVC3HiBu2EE8tMRCgN2fBMbwUsc7aUpm2rE2cD4dMOqiFFzr Vz6tn4vr3yGXdADtvCRBZsBWbNnSl1qpPswwcUC3Wg== X-Received: by 2002:a25:8e0e:: with SMTP id p14mr4222528ybl.84.1621302487891; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:48:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1621242249-8314-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 18:47:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [[RFC]PATCH] psi: fix race between psi_trigger_create and psimon To: Zhaoyang Huang Cc: Johannes Weiner , Zhaoyang Huang , Ziwei Dai , Ke Wang , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 5:41 PM Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 5:30 AM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:33 PM Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:36 AM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > > > CC Suren > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 05:04:09PM +0800, Huangzhaoyang wrote: > > > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > > > > > > > > > Race detected between psimon_new and psimon_old as shown below, which > > > > > cause panic by accessing invalid psi_system->poll_wait->wait_queue_entry > > > > > and psi_system->poll_timer->entry->next. It is not necessary to reinit > > > > > resource of psi_system when psi_trigger_create. > > > > > > resource of psi_system will not be reinitialized because > > > init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait) and friends are initialized > > > only during the creation of the first trigger for that group (see this > > > condition: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/sched/psi.c#L1119). > > > > > > > > > > > > > psi_trigger_create psimon_new psimon_old > > > > > init_waitqueue_head finish_wait > > > > > spin_lock(lock_old) > > > > > spin_lock_init(lock_new) > > > > > wake_up_process(psimon_new) > > > > > > > > > > finish_wait > > > > > spin_lock(lock_new) > > > > > list_del list_del > > > > > > Could you please clarify this race a bit? I'm having trouble > > > deciphering this diagram. I'm guessing psimon_new/psimon_old refer to > > > a new trigger being created while an old one is being deleted, so it > > > seems like a race between psi_trigger_create/psi_trigger_destroy. The > > > combination of trigger_lock and RCU should be protecting us from that > > > but maybe I missed something? > > > I'm excluding a possibility of a race between psi_trigger_create with > > > another existing trigger on the same group because the codepath > > > calling init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait) happens only when the > > > first trigger for that group is created. Therefore if there is an > > > existing trigger in that group that codepath will not be taken. > > > > Ok, looking at the current code I think you can hit the following race > > when psi_trigger_destroy is destroying the last trigger in a psi group > > while racing with psi_trigger_create: > > > > psi_trigger_destroy psi_trigger_create > > mutex_lock(trigger_lock); > > rcu_assign_pointer(poll_task, NULL); > > mutex_unlock(trigger_lock); > > mutex_lock(trigger_lock); > > if > > (!rcu_access_pointer(group->poll_task)) { > > > > timer_setup(poll_timer, poll_timer_fn, 0); > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(poll_task, task); > > } > > mutex_unlock(trigger_lock); > > > > synchronize_rcu(); > > del_timer_sync(poll_timer); <-- poll_timer has been reinitialized by > > psi_trigger_create > > > > So, trigger_lock/RCU correctly protects destruction of > > group->poll_task but misses this race affecting poll_timer and > > poll_wait. > > Let me think if we can handle this without moving initialization into > > group_init(). > Right, this is exactly what we met during a monkey test on an android > system, where the psimon will be destroyed/recreated by unref/recreate > the psi_trigger. IMHO, poll_timer and poll_wait should exist during > whole period Ok, understood. I think it should be ok to initialize poll_wait and poll_timer at the group creation time. Looks like init_waitqueue_head() and timer_setup() initialize the fields but I don't think they allocate some additional resources. Johannes pointed to some issues in your original patch, so I've made some small modifications (see below). del_timer_sync() was important back when we used kthread_worker, now even if timer fires unnecessarily it should be harmless after we reset group->poll_task. So I think a del_timer() in psi_trigger_destroy() should be enough: @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ struct psi_group psi_system = { }; static void psi_avgs_work(struct work_struct *work); +static void poll_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t); static void group_init(struct psi_group *group) { @@ -202,6 +203,8 @@ static void group_init(struct psi_group *group) group->polling_next_update = ULLONG_MAX; group->polling_until = 0; rcu_assign_pointer(group->poll_task, NULL); + init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait); + timer_setup(&group->poll_timer, poll_timer_fn, 0); } void __init psi_init(void) @@ -1157,9 +1160,7 @@ struct psi_trigger *psi_trigger_create(struct psi_group *group, return ERR_CAST(task); } atomic_set(&group->poll_wakeup, 0); - init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait); wake_up_process(task); - timer_setup(&group->poll_timer, poll_timer_fn, 0); rcu_assign_pointer(group->poll_task, task); } @@ -1211,6 +1212,7 @@ static void psi_trigger_destroy(struct kref *ref) group->poll_task, lockdep_is_held(&group->trigger_lock)); rcu_assign_pointer(group->poll_task, NULL); + del_timer(&group->poll_timer); } } @@ -1230,10 +1232,7 @@ static void psi_trigger_destroy(struct kref *ref) /* * After the RCU grace period has expired, the worker * can no longer be found through group->poll_task. - * But it might have been already scheduled before - * that - deschedule it cleanly before destroying it. */ - del_timer_sync(&group->poll_timer); kthread_stop(task_to_destroy); } kfree(t); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: ziwei.dai > > > > > Signed-off-by: ke.wang > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang > > > > > --- > > > > > kernel/sched/psi.c | 6 ++++-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/psi.c b/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > > index cc25a3c..d00e585 100644 > > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/psi.c > > > > > @@ -182,6 +182,8 @@ struct psi_group psi_system = { > > > > > > > > > > static void psi_avgs_work(struct work_struct *work); > > > > > > > > > > +static void poll_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t); > > > > > + > > > > > static void group_init(struct psi_group *group) > > > > > { > > > > > int cpu; > > > > > @@ -201,6 +203,8 @@ static void group_init(struct psi_group *group) > > > > > memset(group->polling_total, 0, sizeof(group->polling_total)); > > > > > group->polling_next_update = ULLONG_MAX; > > > > > group->polling_until = 0; > > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait); > > > > > + timer_setup(&group->poll_timer, poll_timer_fn, 0); > > > > > > > > This makes sense. > > > > > > Well, this means we initialize resources for triggers in each psi > > > group even if the user never creates any triggers. Current logic > > > initializes them when the first trigger in the group gets created. > > > > > > > > > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(group->poll_task, NULL); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1157,7 +1161,6 @@ struct psi_trigger *psi_trigger_create(struct psi_group *group, > > > > > return ERR_CAST(task); > > > > > } > > > > > atomic_set(&group->poll_wakeup, 0); > > > > > - init_waitqueue_head(&group->poll_wait); > > > > > wake_up_process(task); > > > > > timer_setup(&group->poll_timer, poll_timer_fn, 0); > > > > > > > > This looks now unncessary? > > > > > > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(group->poll_task, task); > > > > > @@ -1233,7 +1236,6 @@ static void psi_trigger_destroy(struct kref *ref) > > > > > * But it might have been already scheduled before > > > > > * that - deschedule it cleanly before destroying it. > > > > > */ > > > > > - del_timer_sync(&group->poll_timer); > > > > > > > > And this looks wrong. Did you mean to delete the timer_setup() line > > > > instead? > > > > > > I would like to get more details about this race before trying to fix > > > it. Please clarify. > > > Thanks!