On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:32:38PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 06:14:40PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 09:21:28PM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 06:55:30PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > If I understand correctly, bugs you found were related to module
> > > > unloading race while the zram are still working.
> > >
> > > No, that is a simplifcation of the issue. The issue consists of
> > > two separate issues:
> > >
> > > a) race against module unloading in light of incorrect racty use of
> > > cpu hotplug multistate support
> >
> >
> > Could you add some pusedo code sequence to show the race cleary?
>
> Let us deal with each issue one at time. First, let's address
> understanding the kernel warning can be reproduced easily by
> triggering zram02.sh from LTP twice:
>
> kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
> kernel: Error: Removing state 63 which has instances left.
> kernel: WARNING: CPU: 7 PID: 70457 at kernel/cpu.c:2069 __cpuhp_remove_state_cpuslocked+0xf9/0x100
> kernel: Modules linked in: zram(E-) zsmalloc(E) <etc>
>
> The first patch prevents this race. This race is possible because on
> module init we associate callbacks for CPU hotplug add / remove:
>
> static int __init zram_init(void)
> {
> ...
> ret = cpuhp_setup_state_multi(CPUHP_ZCOMP_PREPARE, "block/zram:prepare",
> zcomp_cpu_up_prepare, zcomp_cpu_dead);
> ...
> }
>
> The zcomp_cpu_dead() accesses the zcom->comp, and if zcomp->comp is
> removed and this function is called, clearly we'll be accessing some
> random data here and can easily crash afterwards:
I am trying to understand this crash. You mentioned the warning
above but here mention crash(I understand sysfs race but this is
different topic). What's the relation with above warning and
crash here? You are talking the warning could change to the
crash sometimes?
>
> int zcomp_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu, struct hlist_node *node)
> {
> struct zcomp *comp = hlist_entry(node, struct zcomp, node);
> struct zcomp_strm *zstrm;
>
> zstrm = per_cpu_ptr(comp->stream, cpu);
> zcomp_strm_free(zstrm);
> return 0;
> }
>
> And zram's syfs reset_store() lets userspace call zram_reset_device()
> which calls zcomp_destroy():
>
> void zcomp_destroy(struct zcomp *comp)
> {
> cpuhp_state_remove_instance(CPUHP_ZCOMP_PREPARE, &comp->node);
> free_percpu(comp->stream);
> kfree(comp);
> }
Do you mean the race between module unloading and zram_reset_device?
If I understood correctly, the approach I put in the first reply would
prevent this problem.
>
> > It would be great if it goes in the description, too since it's
> > more clear to show the problme.
>
> Does the above do it?
Rather than that, let's have this kinds of explanation, which is
more clear(it's a just example, not describing exact race you saw.
You could be better to descibe it).
CPU A CPU B
moudle_unload
destroy_devices
zram_remove_cb
reset_store
zcomp_cpu_dead
zram_reset_device
zcomp_destroy
cpuhp_state_remove_instance
zcomp_strm_free
> >
> > > b) module unload race with sysfs attribute race on *any* driver which
> > > has sysfs attributes which also shares the same lock as used during
> > > module unload
> >
> > Yub, that part I missed. Maybe, we need some wrapper to zram sysfs
> > to get try_module_get in the warapper funnction and then call sub
> > rountine only if it got the refcount.
> >
> > zram_sysfs_wrapper(func, A, B)
> > if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE)
> > return -ENODEV;
> > ret = func(A,B);
> > module_put(THIS_MODULE);
> > return ret;
>
> I'd much prefer this be resolved in kernfs later, if you look at the kernel
> there are already some drivers which may have realized this requirement
> the hard way. Open coding this I think makes the race / intent clearer.
>
> Right now we have no semantics possible for a generic solution, but I
> can work on one later.
Yub, no problem. My point is let's have some zram sysfs wrapper to manage
module_get/put automatically as I mentioned above so no need to deal with
module refcount in worker functions.
