Message-ID: <5373d269-84e4-b199-3011-4c879c480b68@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2023 18:42:37 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.0
Subject: Re: [BUG] possible deadlock in __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
CC:     "liwei (GF)" <liwei391@huawei.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <e015e32d-d068-2d17-1ca5-c584c30ffebb@huawei.com>
 <20221012064911.GN4221@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <Y063MGk3oVg6ney0@lakrids>
 <Y1AGWuwZsq/NW1U3@FVFF77S0Q05N>
From:   Yu Liao <liaoyu15@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y1AGWuwZsq/NW1U3@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/10/19 22:14, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 03:24:48PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 11:49:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 09:18:11PM +0800, Yu Liao wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> When I run syzkaller, a deadlock problem occurs. The call stack is as follows:
>>>> [ 1088.244366][    C1] ======================================================
>>>> [ 1088.244838][    C1] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>>> [ 1088.245313][    C1] 5.10.0-04424-ga472e3c833d3 #1 Not tainted
>>>> [ 1088.245745][    C1] ------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that an unfortunate set of commits were backported
>>> to v5.10.  Could you please bisect?
>>>
>>>> [ 1088.246214][    C1] syz-executor.2/932 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>> [ 1088.246628][    C1] ffffa0001440c418 (rcu_node_0){..-.}-{2:2}, at:
>>>> __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick+0x128/0x2f4
>>>> [ 1088.247330][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.247330][    C1] but task is already holding lock:
>>>> [ 1088.247830][    C1] ffff000224d0c298 (&rq->lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at:
>>>> try_to_wake_up+0x6e0/0xd40
>>>> [ 1088.248424][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.248424][    C1] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>> [ 1088.248424][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.249127][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.249127][    C1] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>>> [ 1088.249726][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.249726][    C1] -> #1 (&rq->lock){-.-.}-{2:2}:
>>>> [ 1088.250239][    C1]        validate_chain+0x6dc/0xb0c
>>>> [ 1088.250591][    C1]        __lock_acquire+0x498/0x940
>>>> [ 1088.250942][    C1]        lock_acquire+0x228/0x580
>>>> [ 1088.251346][    C1]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xc0/0x15c
>>>> [ 1088.251758][    C1]        resched_cpu+0x5c/0x110
>>>> [ 1088.252091][    C1]        rcu_implicit_dynticks_qs+0x2b0/0x5d0
>>>> [ 1088.252501][    C1]        force_qs_rnp+0x244/0x39c
>>>> [ 1088.252847][    C1]        rcu_gp_fqs_loop+0x2e4/0x440
>>>> [ 1088.253219][    C1]        rcu_gp_kthread+0x1a4/0x240
>>>> [ 1088.253597][    C1]        kthread+0x20c/0x260
>>>> [ 1088.253963][    C1]        ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>>> [ 1088.254389][    C1]
>>>> [ 1088.254389][    C1] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-.}-{2:2}:
>>>> [ 1088.255296][    C1]        check_prev_add+0xe0/0x105c
>>>> [ 1088.256000][    C1]        check_prevs_add+0x1c8/0x3d4
>>>> [ 1088.256693][    C1]        validate_chain+0x6dc/0xb0c
>>>> [ 1088.257372][    C1]        __lock_acquire+0x498/0x940
>>>> [ 1088.257731][    C1]        lock_acquire+0x228/0x580
>>>> [ 1088.258079][    C1]        _raw_spin_lock+0xa0/0x120
>>>> [ 1088.258425][    C1]        __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick+0x128/0x2f4
>>>> [ 1088.258844][    C1]        rcu_nmi_enter+0xc4/0xd0
>>>
>>> This is looking like we took an interrupt while holding an rq lock.
>>> Am I reading this correctly?  If so, that is bad in and of itself.
>>
>> In this case it's not an interrupt; per the entry bits below:
>>
>>>> [ 1088.259183][    C1]        arm64_enter_el1_dbg+0xb0/0x160
>>>> [ 1088.259623][    C1]        el1_dbg+0x28/0x50
>>>> [ 1088.260011][    C1]        el1_sync_handler+0xf4/0x150
>>>> [ 1088.260481][    C1]        el1_sync+0x74/0x100
>>
>> ... this is a synchronous debug exception, which is one of:
>>
>>  * A hardware single-step exception
>>  * A hardware watchpoint
>>  * A hardware breakpoint
>>  * A software breakpoint (i.e. a BRK instruction)
>>
>> ... and we have to treat those as NMIs.
>>
>> That could be a kprobe, or a WARN, etc.
> 
> Having a go with v6.1-rc1, placing a kprobe on __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick()
> causes a recursive exception which triggers the stack overflow detection, so
> there are bigger problems here, and we'll need to do some further rework of the
> arm64 entry code. FWIW, x86-64 seems fine.
> 
> I have a vague recollection that that there was something (some part kprobes,
> perhaps) that didn't like being called in NMI context, which is why debug
> exceptions aren't accounted as true NMIs (but get most of the same treatment).
> 
> I'll have to dig into this a bit more; there are a bunch of subtle interactions
> in this area, and I don't want to put a band-aid over this without fully
> understanding the implications.
> 
> Once we've figured that out for mainline, we can figure out what needs to go to
> stable.

Hi Mark,

Do you have any plans to apply Zhang Qiang's patch that treats el1_dbg as NMI,
or do you have any other better solutions?

Thanks,
Yu