Re: [PATCH v2] workqueue: Don't record workqueue stack holding raw_spin_lock

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2021-09-06 09:12:58 [+0200], Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 05:46PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> [...]
> > > 3. Try to not allocate memory in stackdepot. Not sure this is feasible
> > > without telling stackdepot to preallocate the max slabs on boot if RT.
> > > 
> > 
> > We could. I have to ask though how much of the real world cases do we
> > need to impact for the debug code to work?
> > 
> > > Anything else? Because I don't think any of the options are satisfying.
> > 
> > One option to consider is checking dry-run invalid nesting check and
> > bail out if it is true in kasan_record_aux_stack()
> 
> Sadly, if lockdep is off, this won't work. And we need a way to
> generically fix this, as otherwise we still have a bug (which may also
> cause issues on RT kernels).
> 
> I propose we properly fix this and prevent stackdepot from replenishing
> its "stack slab" pool if memory allocations cannot be done in the
> current context. Specifically, I noticed technically it's a bug to use
> either GFP_ATOMIC nor GFP_NOWAIT in certain non-preemptive contexts,
> including raw_spin_locks (see gfp.h and ab00db216c9c7).

I would say so, too. It is unlikely that we manage to remove
raw_spin_lock_t from the workqueue code or that memory allocation with
disabled preemption/ interrupts would be allowed on RT.
Also as Marco pointed out, avoiding this code once a debug switch has
been noticed is not good.

> This is what kasan_record_aux_stack() via stackdepot does, and it's a
> bug here regardless if lockdep is on or off.
> 
> I've prepared a series (see attached draft patches) that allows telling
> stackdepot to not replenish its pool if alloc_pages() cannot be called
> at all (where GFP_ATOMIC/NOWAIT doesn't even work).

This sounds good. debug_object has also a memory pool which is
replenished from time to time.

> The only downside is that saving a stack trace may fail if: stackdepot
> runs out of space AND the same stack trace has not been recorded before.
> I expect this to be unlikely, and a simple experiment (boot the kernel)
> didn't result in any failure to record stack trace from insert_work().
> 
> I think this is a reasonable trade-off. And considering that we're
> unsure if queuing work can or cannot be done from within an outer
> raw_spin_lock'ed critical section, I don't see a better way.
> 
> If you agree, I'll send this series out for further review.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco

Sebastian