Re: [PATCH] call_rcu: Fix race between rcu_barrier() and call_rcu_data_free()

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Oct 22, 2020, at 6:30 PM, paulmck paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> The current code can lose RCU callbacks at shutdown time, which can
> result in hangs.  This lossage can happen as follows:
> 
> o       A thread invokes call_rcu_data_free(), which executes up through
>        the wake_call_rcu_thread().  At this point, the call_rcu_data
>        structure has been drained of callbacks, but is still on the
>        call_rcu_data_list.  Note that this thread does not hold the
>        call_rcu_mutex.
> 
> o       Another thread invokes rcu_barrier(), which traverses the
>        call_rcu_data_list under the protection of call_rcu_mutex,
>        a list which still includes the above newly drained structure.
>        This thread therefore adds a callback to the newly drained
>        call_rcu_data structure.  It then releases call_rcu_mutex and
>        enters a mystifying loop that does futex stuff.
> 
> o       The first thread finishes executing call_rcu_data_free(),
>        which acquires call_rcu_mutex just long enough to remove the
>        newly drained call_rcu_data structure from call_rcu_data_list.
>        Which causes one of the rcu_barrier() invocation's callbacks to
>        be leaked.
> 
> o       The second thread's rcu_barrier() invocation never returns
>        resulting in a hang.
> 
> This commit therefore changes call_rcu_data_free() to acquire
> call_rcu_mutex before checking the call_rcu_data structure for callbacks.
> In the case where there are no callbacks, call_rcu_mutex is held across
> both the check and the removal from call_rcu_data_list, thus preventing
> rcu_barrier() from adding a callback in the meantime.  In the case where
> there are callbacks, call_rcu_mutex must be momentarily dropped across
> the call to get_default_call_rcu_data(), which can itself acquire
> call_rcu_mutex.  This momentary drop is not a problem because any
> callbacks that rcu_barrier() might queue during that period of time will
> be moved to the default call_rcu_data structure, and the lock will be
> held across the full time including moving those callbacks and removing
> the call_rcu_data structure that was passed into call_rcu_data_free()
> from call_rcu_data_list.
> 
> With this fix, a several-hundred-CPU test successfully completes more
> than 5,000 executions.  Without this fix, it fails within a few tens
> of executions.  Although the failures happen more quickly on larger
> systems, in theory this could happen on a single-CPU system, courtesy
> of preemption.

I agree with this fix, will merge in liburcu master, stable-0.12, and stable-2.11.
Out of curiosity, which test is hanging ?  Is it a test which is part of the liburcu
tree or some out-of-tree test ? I wonder why we did not catch it in our CI [1].

Thanks,

Mathieu

[1] https://ci.lttng.org/view/Liburcu/

> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <lttng-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 
> urcu-call-rcu-impl.h |    7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h b/src/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> index b6ec6ba..18fd65a 100644
> --- a/src/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> +++ b/src/urcu-call-rcu-impl.h
> @@ -772,9 +772,13 @@ void call_rcu_data_free(struct call_rcu_data *crdp)
> 		while ((uatomic_read(&crdp->flags) & URCU_CALL_RCU_STOPPED) == 0)
> 			(void) poll(NULL, 0, 1);
> 	}
> +	call_rcu_lock(&call_rcu_mutex);
> 	if (!cds_wfcq_empty(&crdp->cbs_head, &crdp->cbs_tail)) {
> -		/* Create default call rcu data if need be */
> +		call_rcu_unlock(&call_rcu_mutex);
> +		/* Create default call rcu data if need be. */
> +		/* CBs queued here will be handed to the default list. */
> 		(void) get_default_call_rcu_data();
> +		call_rcu_lock(&call_rcu_mutex);
> 		__cds_wfcq_splice_blocking(&default_call_rcu_data->cbs_head,
> 			&default_call_rcu_data->cbs_tail,
> 			&crdp->cbs_head, &crdp->cbs_tail);
> @@ -783,7 +787,6 @@ void call_rcu_data_free(struct call_rcu_data *crdp)
> 		wake_call_rcu_thread(default_call_rcu_data);
> 	}
> 
> -	call_rcu_lock(&call_rcu_mutex);
> 	cds_list_del(&crdp->list);
>  	call_rcu_unlock(&call_rcu_mutex);

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com