On 04.04.2018 19:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:51:08PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 04.04.2018 18:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:24:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>> The following situation leads to deadlock:
>>>>
>>>> [task 1] [task 2] [task 3]
>>>> kill_fasync() mm_update_next_owner() copy_process()
>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) read_lock(&tasklist_lock) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
>>>> send_sigio() <IRQ> ...
>>>> read_lock(&fown->lock) kill_fasync() ...
>>>> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) ...
>>>>
>>>> Task 1 can't acquire read locked tasklist_lock, since there is
>>>> already task 3 expressed its wish to take the lock exclusive.
>>>> Task 2 holds the read locked lock, but it can't take the spin lock.
>>>>
>>>> The patch makes queued_read_lock_slowpath() to give task 1 the same
>>>> priority as it was an interrupt handler, and to take the lock
>>>
>>> That re-introduces starvation scenarios. And the above looks like a
>>> proper deadlock that should be sorted by fixing the locking order.
>>
>> We can move tasklist_lock out of send_sigio(), but I'm not sure
>> it's possible for read_lock(&fown->lock).
>
> So the scenario is:
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock);
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> <IRQ>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock);
>
>
> Right? (where the row now signifies time)
>
> That doesn't seem to include fown->lock, you're saying it has an
> identical issue?
There is also read_lock(), which can be taken from interrupt:
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
f_getown() kill_fasync()
read_lock(&f_own->lock) spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags)
<IRQ> send_sigio() write_lock_irq(&f_own->lock);
kill_fasync() read_lock(&fown->lock)
spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags)
To prevent deadlock, this requires all &f_own->lock be taken via read_lock_irqsave().
This may be formalized as lockdep rule: if spinlock nests into read_lock(), and they
both can be called from interrupt, the rest of read_lock() always must disable interrupts.
>> Is there another solution? Is there reliable way to iterate do_each_pid_task()
>> with rcu_read_lock()?
>
> Depends on what you call reliable :-), Yes you can use
> do_each_pid_task() with RCU, but as always you're prone to see tasks
> that are dead and miss tasks that just came in.
>
> If that is sufficient for the signal muck, dunno :/ Typically signals
> use sighand lock, not tasklist_lock.
The first thing is not a problem, while missing a newly moved task is not suitable.
So, it seems it's not reliable...
Kirill