Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when atomic

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:30:35PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 26.11.2014 um 17:19 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:02:23PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>> This is what happened on our side (very recent kernel):
> >>>>
> >>>> spin_lock(&lock)
> >>>> copy_to_user(...)
> >>>> spin_unlock(&lock)
> >>>
> >>> That's a deadlock even without copy_to_user - it's
> >>> enough for the thread to be preempted and another one
> >>> to try taking the lock.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 1. s390 locks/unlocks a spin lock with a compare and swap, using the _cpu id_
> >>>>    as "old value"
> >>>> 2. we slept during copy_to_user()
> >>>> 3. the thread got scheduled onto another cpu
> >>>> 4. spin_unlock failed as the _cpu id_ didn't match (another cpu that locked
> >>>>    the spinlock tried to unlocked it).
> >>>> 5. lock remained locked -> deadlock
> >>>>
> >>>> Christian came up with the following explanation:
> >>>> Without preemption, spin_lock() will not touch the preempt counter.
> >>>> disable_pfault() will always touch it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore, with preemption disabled, copy_to_user() has no idea that it is
> >>>> running in atomic context - and will therefore try to sleep.
> >>>>
> >>>> So copy_to_user() will on s390:
> >>>> 1. run "as atomic" while spin_lock() with preemption enabled.
> >>>> 2. run "as not atomic" while spin_lock() with preemption disabled.
> >>>> 3.  run "as atomic" while pagefault_disabled() with preemption enabled or
> >>>> disabled.
> >>>> 4. run "as not atomic" when really not atomic.
> >>
> >> should have been more clear at that point: 
> >> preemption enabled == kernel compiled with preemption support
> >> preemption disabled == kernel compiled without preemption support
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> And exactly nr 2. is the thing that produced the deadlock in our scenario and
> >>>> the reason why I want a might_sleep() :)
> >>>
> >>> IMHO it's not copy to user that causes the problem.
> >>> It's the misuse of spinlocks with preemption on.
> >>
> >> As I said, preemption was off.
> > 
> > off -> disabled at compile time?
> > 
> > But the code is broken for people that do enable it.
> [...]
> > You should normally disable preemption if you take
> > spinlocks.
> 
> Your are telling that any sequence of
> spin_lock
> ...
> spin_unlock
> 
> is broken with CONFIG_PREEMPT?
> Michael, that is bullshit. spin_lock will take care of CONFIG_PREEMPT just fine. 
> 
> Only sequences like
> spin_lock
> ...
> schedule
> ...
> spin_unlock
> are broken.
> 
> But as I said. That is not the problem that we are discussing here.
> 
> Christian

I'm saying spin_lock without _irqsave is often a bug.


I am also saying this code in mm/fault.c:
__do_page_fault
...
        /*
         * If we're in an interrupt, have no user context or are running
         * in an atomic region then we must not take the fault:
         */
        if (unlikely(in_atomic() || !mm)) {
                bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, error_code, address);
                return;
        }

means that a fault won't cause sleep if called in atomic context.

And a bunch of code relies on this.

This is why might_fault does:

         * it would be nicer only to annotate paths which are not under
         * pagefault_disable, however that requires a larger audit and
         * providing helpers like get_user_atomic.
         */
        if (in_atomic())
                return;

        __might_sleep(__FILE__, __LINE__, 0);


If you see this violated, let's figure out why.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/