All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	wfg@linux.intel.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: d1fc031747 ("sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is .."):  EIP: __wake_up_common
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:05:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171214130518.GC30288@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171214125809.GB30288@bombadil.infradead.org>


Argh, forgot to cc the userfaultfd people.  Sorry.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:58:09AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:03:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >     sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> > >     
> > >     Better ensure we actually hold the lock using lockdep than just commenting
> > >     on it.  Due to the various exported _locked interfaces it is far too easy
> > >     to get the locking wrong.
> > 
> > I'm probably sitting on an older version.  I've dropped
> > 
> > epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq
> > sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> 
> Looks pretty clear to me that userfaultfd is also abusing the wake_up_locked
> interfaces:
> 
>         spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
> 
> Sure, it's locked, but not by the lock you thought it was going to be.
> 
> There doesn't actually appear to be a bug here; fault_wqh is always serialised
> by fault_pending_wqh.lock, but lockdep can't know that.  I think this patch
> will solve the problem.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index ac9a4e65ca49..a39bc3237b68 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> -	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> +	__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, &range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  
>  	/* Flush pending events that may still wait on event_wqh */
> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
>  			 * anyway.
>  			 */
>  			list_del(&uwq->wq.entry);
> -			__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
> +			add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
>  
>  			write_seqcount_end(&ctx->refile_seq);
>  
> @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ static void __wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>  		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL,
>  				     range);
>  	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> -		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, range);
> +		__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  }
>  
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	wfg@linux.intel.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: d1fc031747 ("sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is .."):  EIP: __wake_up_common
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:05:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171214130518.GC30288@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171214125809.GB30288@bombadil.infradead.org>


Argh, forgot to cc the userfaultfd people.  Sorry.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:58:09AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:03:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >     sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> > >     
> > >     Better ensure we actually hold the lock using lockdep than just commenting
> > >     on it.  Due to the various exported _locked interfaces it is far too easy
> > >     to get the locking wrong.
> > 
> > I'm probably sitting on an older version.  I've dropped
> > 
> > epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq
> > sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> 
> Looks pretty clear to me that userfaultfd is also abusing the wake_up_locked
> interfaces:
> 
>         spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
> 
> Sure, it's locked, but not by the lock you thought it was going to be.
> 
> There doesn't actually appear to be a bug here; fault_wqh is always serialised
> by fault_pending_wqh.lock, but lockdep can't know that.  I think this patch
> will solve the problem.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index ac9a4e65ca49..a39bc3237b68 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> -	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> +	__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, &range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  
>  	/* Flush pending events that may still wait on event_wqh */
> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
>  			 * anyway.
>  			 */
>  			list_del(&uwq->wq.entry);
> -			__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
> +			add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
>  
>  			write_seqcount_end(&ctx->refile_seq);
>  
> @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ static void __wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>  		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL,
>  				     range);
>  	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> -		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, range);
> +		__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  }
>  
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: d1fc031747 ("sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is .."): EIP: __wake_up_common
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:05:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171214130518.GC30288@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171214125809.GB30288@bombadil.infradead.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2899 bytes --]


Argh, forgot to cc the userfaultfd people.  Sorry.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:58:09AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 05:03:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >     sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> > >     
> > >     Better ensure we actually hold the lock using lockdep than just commenting
> > >     on it.  Due to the various exported _locked interfaces it is far too easy
> > >     to get the locking wrong.
> > 
> > I'm probably sitting on an older version.  I've dropped
> > 
> > epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq
> > sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common
> 
> Looks pretty clear to me that userfaultfd is also abusing the wake_up_locked
> interfaces:
> 
>         spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         __wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
>         spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
> 
> Sure, it's locked, but not by the lock you thought it was going to be.
> 
> There doesn't actually appear to be a bug here; fault_wqh is always serialised
> by fault_pending_wqh.lock, but lockdep can't know that.  I think this patch
> will solve the problem.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> index ac9a4e65ca49..a39bc3237b68 100644
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static int userfaultfd_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> -	__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, &range);
> +	__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, &range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  
>  	/* Flush pending events that may still wait on event_wqh */
> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
>  			 * anyway.
>  			 */
>  			list_del(&uwq->wq.entry);
> -			__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
> +			add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
>  
>  			write_seqcount_end(&ctx->refile_seq);
>  
> @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ static void __wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
>  		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh, TASK_NORMAL,
>  				     range);
>  	if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> -		__wake_up_locked_key(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, range);
> +		__wake_up(&ctx->fault_wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, range);
>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
>  }
>  
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo(a)kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email(a)kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-14 13:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-14  0:50 d1fc031747 ("sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is .."): EIP: __wake_up_common kernel test robot
2017-12-14  0:50 ` kernel test robot
2017-12-14  1:03 ` Andrew Morton
2017-12-14  1:03   ` Andrew Morton
2017-12-14  1:03   ` Andrew Morton
2017-12-14  4:58   ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-14  4:58     ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-14  4:58     ` Stephen Rothwell
2017-12-14 12:57   ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 12:57     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 12:57     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 12:58   ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 12:58     ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 12:58     ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 13:05     ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2017-12-14 13:05       ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 13:05       ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 13:10     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 13:10       ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 13:10       ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-14 14:12       ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 14:12         ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-14 14:12         ` Matthew Wilcox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171214130518.GC30288@bombadil.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=wfg@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.