Re: possible deadlock in sk_clone_lock

[Michal Hocko]

[Add Paul]

On Tue 02-03-21 13:19:34, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 3/2/21 6:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 02-03-21 06:11:51, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:44 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon 01-03-21 17:16:29, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/21 9:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon 01-03-21 08:39:22, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:57 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> Then how come this can ever be a problem? in_task() should exclude soft
> >>>>>>> irq context unless I am mistaken.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If I take the following example of syzbot's deadlock scenario then
> >>>>>> CPU1 is the one freeing the hugetlb pages. It is in the process
> >>>>>> context but has disabled softirqs (see __tcp_close()).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         CPU0                    CPU1
> >>>>>>         ----                    ----
> >>>>>>    lock(hugetlb_lock);
> >>>>>>                                 local_irq_disable();
> >>>>>>                                 lock(slock-AF_INET);
> >>>>>>                                 lock(hugetlb_lock);
> >>>>>>    <Interrupt>
> >>>>>>      lock(slock-AF_INET);
> >>>>>>
> > [...]
> >>> Wouldn't something like this help? It is quite ugly but it would be
> >>> simple enough and backportable while we come up with a more rigorous
> >>> solution. What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >>> index 4bdb58ab14cb..c9a8b39f678d 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >>> @@ -1495,9 +1495,11 @@ static DECLARE_WORK(free_hpage_work, free_hpage_workfn);
> >>>  void free_huge_page(struct page *page)
> >>>  {
> >>>         /*
> >>> -        * Defer freeing if in non-task context to avoid hugetlb_lock deadlock.
> >>> +        * Defer freeing if in non-task context or when put_page is called
> >>> +        * with IRQ disabled (e.g from via TCP slock dependency chain) to
> >>> +        * avoid hugetlb_lock deadlock.
> >>>          */
> >>> -       if (!in_task()) {
> >>> +       if (!in_task() || irqs_disabled()) {
> >>
> >> Does irqs_disabled() also check softirqs?
> > 
> > Nope it doesn't AFAICS. I was referring to the above lockdep splat which
> > claims irq disabled to be the trigger. But now that you are mentioning
> > that it would be better to replace in_task() along the way. We have
> > discussed that in another email thread and I was suggesting to use
> > in_atomic() which should catch also bh disabled situation. The big IF is
> > that this needs preempt count to be enabled unconditionally. There are
> > changes in the RCU tree heading that direction.
> 
> I have not been following developments in preemption and the RCU tree. 
> The comment for in_atomic() says:
> 
> /*
>  * Are we running in atomic context?  WARNING: this macro cannot
>  * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
>  * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels.  Thus it should not be
>  * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
>  * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
>  */
> 
> That does seem to be the case.  I verified in_atomic can detect softirq
> context even in non-preemptible kernels.  But, as the comment says it
> will not detect a held spinlock in non-preemptible kernels.  So, I think
> in_atomic would be better than the current check for !in_task.  That
> would handle this syzbot issue, but we could still have issues if the
> hugetlb put_page path is called while someone is holding a spinlock with
> all interrupts enabled.  Looks like there is no way to detect this
> today in non-preemptible kernels.  in_atomic does detect spinlocks held
> in preemptible kernels.

Paul what is the current plan with in_atomic to be usable for !PREEMPT
configurations?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs