linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: paulmck@kernel.org
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
	mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
	fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 20/30] rcu: Fix rcu_barrier_callback() race condition
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:55:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200214235607.13749-20-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200214235536.GA13364@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>

The rcu_barrier_callback() function does an atomic_dec_and_test(), and
if it is the last CPU to check in, does the required wakeup.  Either way,
it does an event trace.  Unfortunately, this is susceptible to the
following sequence of events:

o	CPU 0 invokes rcu_barrier_callback(), but atomic_dec_and_test()
	says that it is not last.  But at this point, CPU 0 is delayed,
	perhaps due to an NMI, SMI, or vCPU preemption.

o	CPU 1 invokes rcu_barrier_callback(), and atomic_dec_and_test()
	says that it is last.  So CPU 1 traces completion and does
	the needed wakeup.

o	The awakened rcu_barrier() function does cleanup and releases
	rcu_state.barrier_mutex.

o	Another CPU now acquires rcu_state.barrier_mutex and starts
	another round of rcu_barrier() processing, including updating
	rcu_state.barrier_sequence.

o	CPU 0 gets its act back together and does its tracing.  Except
	that rcu_state.barrier_sequence has already been updated, so
	its tracing is incorrect and probably quite confusing.
	(Wait!  Why did this CPU check in twice for one rcu_barrier()
	invocation???)

This commit therefore causes rcu_barrier_callback() to take a
snapshot of the value of rcu_state.barrier_sequence before invoking
atomic_dec_and_test(), thus guaranteeing that the event-trace output
is sensible, even if the timing of the event-trace output might still
be confusing.  (Wait!  Why did the old rcu_barrier() complete before
all of its CPUs checked in???)  But being that this is RCU, only so much
confusion can reasonably be eliminated.

This data race was reported by KCSAN.  Not appropriate for backporting
due to failure being unlikely and due to the mild consequences of the
failure, namely a confusing event trace.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index be59a5d..62383ce 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -3077,15 +3077,22 @@ static void rcu_barrier_trace(const char *s, int cpu, unsigned long done)
 /*
  * RCU callback function for rcu_barrier().  If we are last, wake
  * up the task executing rcu_barrier().
+ *
+ * Note that the value of rcu_state.barrier_sequence must be captured
+ * before the atomic_dec_and_test().  Otherwise, if this CPU is not last,
+ * other CPUs might count the value down to zero before this CPU gets
+ * around to invoking rcu_barrier_trace(), which might result in bogus
+ * data from the next instance of rcu_barrier().
  */
 static void rcu_barrier_callback(struct rcu_head *rhp)
 {
+	unsigned long __maybe_unused s = rcu_state.barrier_sequence;
+
 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_state.barrier_cpu_count)) {
-		rcu_barrier_trace(TPS("LastCB"), -1,
-				  rcu_state.barrier_sequence);
+		rcu_barrier_trace(TPS("LastCB"), -1, s);
 		complete(&rcu_state.barrier_completion);
 	} else {
-		rcu_barrier_trace(TPS("CB"), -1, rcu_state.barrier_sequence);
+		rcu_barrier_trace(TPS("CB"), -1, s);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.9.5


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-02-14 23:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-14 23:55 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/30] Miscellaneous fixes for v5.7 Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/30] nfs: Fix nfs_access_get_cached_rcu() sparse error paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/30] rcu: Warn on for_each_leaf_node_cpu_mask() from non-leaf paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/30] rcu: Fix exp_funnel_lock()/rcu_exp_wait_wake() datarace paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/30] rcu: Provide debug symbols and line numbers in KCSAN runs paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE() to rcu_node ->qsmask update paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE to rcu_node ->exp_seq_rq store paulmck
2020-02-15  3:47   ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-15 10:58     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-17 21:11       ` Joel Fernandes
2020-02-17 21:36         ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/30] rcu: Add READ_ONCE() to rcu_node ->gp_seq paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE() to rcu_state ->gp_req_activity paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE() to rcu_node ->qsmaskinitnext paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/30] locking/rtmutex: rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE() to rt_mutex ->owner paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/30] rcu: Add READ_ONCE() to rcu_segcblist ->tails[] paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/30] rcu: *_ONCE() for grace-period progress indicators paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/30] rcu: Fix typos in beginning comments paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/30] rcu: Add READ_ONCE() to rcu_data ->gpwrap paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/30] rcu: Add *_ONCE() to rcu_data ->rcu_forced_tick paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/30] rcu: Add *_ONCE() to rcu_node ->boost_kthread_status paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/30] timer: Use hlist_unhashed_lockless() in timer_pending() paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 18/30] rcu: Remove dead code from rcu_segcblist_insert_pend_cbs() paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 19/30] rcu: Add WRITE_ONCE() to rcu_state ->gp_start paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` paulmck [this message]
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 21/30] rculist: Add brackets around cond argument in __list_check_rcu macro paulmck
2020-02-14 23:55 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 22/30] rcu: Don't flag non-starting GPs before GP kthread is running paulmck
2020-02-15  3:53   ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-15 11:01     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-15 13:42       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-17 20:25         ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-17 22:03           ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-17 22:21             ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-17 23:03               ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/30] rcu: Add missing annotation for rcu_nocb_bypass_lock() paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 24/30] rcu/nocb: Add missing annotation for rcu_nocb_bypass_unlock() paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 25/30] rcu: Optimize and protect atomic_cmpxchg() loop paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 26/30] rcu: Tighten rcu_lockdep_assert_cblist_protected() check paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 27/30] rcu: Make nocb_gp_wait() double-check unexpected-callback warning paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 28/30] rcu: Mark rcu_state.ncpus to detect concurrent writes paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 29/30] rcu: Mark rcu_state.gp_seq " paulmck
2020-02-14 23:56 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 30/30] rcu: Make rcu_barrier() account for offline no-CBs CPUs paulmck
2020-02-25 10:24   ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-26  3:14     ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-26  4:18       ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-26  6:14       ` Boqun Feng
2020-02-26 15:02         ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20200214235607.13749-20-paulmck@kernel.org \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).