From ba3a86e47232ad9f76160929f33ac9c64e4d0567 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:44:37 -0700 Subject: rcu-tasks: Fix grace-period/unlock race in RCU Tasks Trace The more intense grace-period processing resulting from the 50x RCU Tasks Trace grace-period speedups exposed the following race condition: o Task A running on CPU 0 executes rcu_read_lock_trace(), entering a read-side critical section. o When Task A eventually invokes rcu_read_unlock_trace() to exit its read-side critical section, this function notes that the ->trc_reader_special.s flag is zero and and therefore invoke wil set ->trc_reader_nesting to zero using WRITE_ONCE(). But before that happens... o The RCU Tasks Trace grace-period kthread running on some other CPU interrogates Task A, but this fails because this task is currently running. This kthread therefore sends an IPI to CPU 0. o CPU 0 receives the IPI, and thus invokes trc_read_check_handler(). Because Task A has not yet cleared its ->trc_reader_nesting counter, this function sees that Task A is still within its read-side critical section. This function therefore sets the ->trc_reader_nesting.b.need_qs flag, AKA the .need_qs flag. Except that Task A has already checked the .need_qs flag, which is part of the ->trc_reader_special.s flag. The .need_qs flag therefore remains set until Task A's next rcu_read_unlock_trace(). o Task A now invokes synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace(), which cannot start a new grace period until the current grace period completes. And thus cannot return until after that time. But Task A's .need_qs flag is still set, which prevents the current grace period from completing. And because Task A is blocked, it will never execute rcu_read_unlock_trace() until its call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() returns. We are therefore deadlocked. This race is improbable, but 80 hours of rcutorture made it happen twice. The race was possible before the grace-period speedup, but roughly 50x less probable. Several thousand hours of rcutorture would have been necessary to have a reasonable chance of making this happen before this 50x speedup. This commit therefore eliminates this deadlock by setting ->trc_reader_nesting to a large negative number before checking the .need_qs and zeroing (or decrementing with respect to its initial value) ->trc_reader_nesting. For its part, the IPI handler's trc_read_check_handler() function adds a check for negative values, deferring evaluation of the task in this case. Taken together, these changes avoid this deadlock scenario. Fixes: 276c410448db ("rcu-tasks: Split ->trc_reader_need_end") Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Jiri Olsa Cc: Cc: # 5.7.x Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) (limited to 'include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h') diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h b/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h index d9015aac78c6..a6a6a3acab5a 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate_trace.h @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock_trace(void) struct task_struct *t = current; WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting) + 1); + barrier(); if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB) && t->trc_reader_special.b.need_mb) smp_mb(); // Pairs with update-side barriers @@ -72,6 +73,9 @@ static inline void rcu_read_unlock_trace(void) rcu_lock_release(&rcu_trace_lock_map); nesting = READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting) - 1; + barrier(); // Critical section before disabling. + // Disable IPI-based setting of .need_qs. + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, INT_MIN); if (likely(!READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_special.s)) || nesting) { WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, nesting); return; // We assume shallow reader nesting. -- cgit