6.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> [ Upstream commit 4a8e65b0c348e42107c64381e692e282900be361 ] SRCU callbacks acceleration might fail if the preceding callbacks advance also fails. This can happen when the following steps are met: 1) The RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment has callbacks (say for gp_num 8) and the RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL also has callbacks (say for gp_num 12). 2) The grace period for RCU_WAIT_TAIL is observed as started but not yet completed so rcu_seq_current() returns 4 + SRCU_STATE_SCAN1 = 5. 3) This value is passed to rcu_segcblist_advance() which can't move any segment forward and fails. 4) srcu_gp_start_if_needed() still proceeds with callback acceleration. But then the call to rcu_seq_snap() observes the grace period for the RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment (gp_num 8) as completed and the subsequent one for the RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL segment as started (ie: 8 + SRCU_STATE_SCAN1 = 9) so it returns a snapshot of the next grace period, which is 16. 5) The value of 16 is passed to rcu_segcblist_accelerate() but the freshly enqueued callback in RCU_NEXT_TAIL can't move to RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL which already has callbacks for a previous grace period (gp_num = 12). So acceleration fails. 6) Note in all these steps, srcu_invoke_callbacks() hadn't had a chance to run srcu_invoke_callbacks(). Then some very bad outcome may happen if the following happens: 7) Some other CPU races and starts the grace period number 16 before the CPU handling previous steps had a chance. Therefore srcu_gp_start() isn't called on the latter sdp to fix the acceleration leak from previous steps with a new pair of call to advance/accelerate. 8) The grace period 16 completes and srcu_invoke_callbacks() is finally called. All the callbacks from previous grace periods (8 and 12) are correctly advanced and executed but callbacks in RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL still remain. Then rcu_segcblist_accelerate() is called with a snaphot of 20. 9) Since nothing started the grace period number 20, callbacks stay unhandled. This has been reported in real load: [3144162.608392] INFO: task kworker/136:12:252684 blocked for more than 122 seconds. [3144162.615986] Tainted: G O K 5.4.203-1-tlinux4-0011.1 #1 [3144162.623053] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [3144162.631162] kworker/136:12 D 0 252684 2 0x90004000 [3144162.631189] Workqueue: kvm-irqfd-cleanup irqfd_shutdown [kvm] [3144162.631192] Call Trace: [3144162.631202] __schedule+0x2ee/0x660 [3144162.631206] schedule+0x33/0xa0 [3144162.631209] schedule_timeout+0x1c4/0x340 [3144162.631214] ? update_load_avg+0x82/0x660 [3144162.631217] ? raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30 [3144162.631218] wait_for_completion+0x119/0x180 [3144162.631220] ? wake_up_q+0x80/0x80 [3144162.631224] __synchronize_srcu.part.19+0x81/0xb0 [3144162.631226] ? __bpf_trace_rcu_utilization+0x10/0x10 [3144162.631227] synchronize_srcu+0x5f/0xc0 [3144162.631236] irqfd_shutdown+0x3c/0xb0 [kvm] [3144162.631239] ? __schedule+0x2f6/0x660 [3144162.631243] process_one_work+0x19a/0x3a0 [3144162.631244] worker_thread+0x37/0x3a0 [3144162.631247] kthread+0x117/0x140 [3144162.631247] ? process_one_work+0x3a0/0x3a0 [3144162.631248] ? __kthread_cancel_work+0x40/0x40 [3144162.631250] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 Fix this with taking the snapshot for acceleration _before_ the read of the current grace period number. The only side effect of this solution is that callbacks advancing happen then _after_ the full barrier in rcu_seq_snap(). This is not a problem because that barrier only cares about: 1) Ordering accesses of the update side before call_srcu() so they don't bleed. 2) See all the accesses prior to the grace period of the current gp_num The only things callbacks advancing need to be ordered against are carried by snp locking. Reported-by: Yong He <alexyonghe@xxxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by:: Yong He <alexyonghe@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Yong He <alexyonghe@xxxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@xxxxxxx> Link: http://lore.kernel.org/CANZk6aR+CqZaqmMWrC2eRRPY12qAZnDZLwLnHZbNi=xXMB401g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fixes: da915ad5cf25 ("srcu: Parallelize callback handling") Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/rcu/srcutree.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c index 8fdf076720384..929dcbc04d29c 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c @@ -1100,10 +1100,37 @@ static unsigned long srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp, spin_lock_irqsave_sdp_contention(sdp, &flags); if (rhp) rcu_segcblist_enqueue(&sdp->srcu_cblist, rhp); + /* + * The snapshot for acceleration must be taken _before_ the read of the + * current gp sequence used for advancing, otherwise advancing may fail + * and acceleration may then fail too. + * + * This could happen if: + * + * 1) The RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment has callbacks (gp_num = X + 4) and the + * RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL also has callbacks (gp_num = X + 8). + * + * 2) The grace period for RCU_WAIT_TAIL is seen as started but not + * completed so rcu_seq_current() returns X + SRCU_STATE_SCAN1. + * + * 3) This value is passed to rcu_segcblist_advance() which can't move + * any segment forward and fails. + * + * 4) srcu_gp_start_if_needed() still proceeds with callback acceleration. + * But then the call to rcu_seq_snap() observes the grace period for the + * RCU_WAIT_TAIL segment as completed and the subsequent one for the + * RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL segment as started (ie: X + 4 + SRCU_STATE_SCAN1) + * so it returns a snapshot of the next grace period, which is X + 12. + * + * 5) The value of X + 12 is passed to rcu_segcblist_accelerate() but the + * freshly enqueued callback in RCU_NEXT_TAIL can't move to + * RCU_NEXT_READY_TAIL which already has callbacks for a previous grace + * period (gp_num = X + 8). So acceleration fails. + */ + s = rcu_seq_snap(&ssp->srcu_gp_seq); rcu_segcblist_advance(&sdp->srcu_cblist, rcu_seq_current(&ssp->srcu_gp_seq)); - s = rcu_seq_snap(&ssp->srcu_gp_seq); - (void)rcu_segcblist_accelerate(&sdp->srcu_cblist, s); + WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_segcblist_accelerate(&sdp->srcu_cblist, s) && rhp); if (ULONG_CMP_LT(sdp->srcu_gp_seq_needed, s)) { sdp->srcu_gp_seq_needed = s; needgp = true; -- 2.43.0
