From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rcu-tasks: Fix synchronize_rcu_tasks() VS zap_pid_ns_processes()
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 12:37:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871qpkqof8.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221125135500.1653800-4-frederic@kernel.org> (Frederic Weisbecker's message of "Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:55:00 +0100")
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> writes:
> RCU Tasks and PID-namespace unshare can interact in do_exit() in a
> complicated circular dependency:
>
> 1) TASK A calls unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), this creates a new PID namespace
> that every subsequent child of TASK A will belong to. But TASK A
> doesn't itself belong to that new PID namespace.
>
> 2) TASK A forks() and creates TASK B. TASK A stays attached to its PID
> namespace (let's say PID_NS1) and TASK B is the first task belonging
> to the new PID namespace created by unshare() (let's call it PID_NS2).
>
> 3) Since TASK B is the first task attached to PID_NS2, it becomes the
> PID_NS2 child reaper.
>
> 4) TASK A forks() again and creates TASK C which get attached to PID_NS2.
> Note how TASK C has TASK A as a parent (belonging to PID_NS1) but has
> TASK B (belonging to PID_NS2) as a pid_namespace child_reaper.
>
> 5) TASK B exits and since it is the child reaper for PID_NS2, it has to
> kill all other tasks attached to PID_NS2, and wait for all of them to
> die before getting reaped itself (zap_pid_ns_process()).
>
> 6) TASK A calls synchronize_rcu_tasks() which leads to
> synchronize_srcu(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu).
>
> 7) TASK B is waiting for TASK C to get reaped. But TASK B is under a
> tasks_rcu_exit_srcu SRCU critical section (exit_notify() is between
> exit_tasks_rcu_start() and exit_tasks_rcu_finish()), blocking TASK A.
>
> 8) TASK C exits and since TASK A is its parent, it waits for it to reap
> TASK C, but it can't because TASK A waits for TASK B that waits for
> TASK C.
>
> Pid_namespace semantics can hardly be changed at this point. But the
> coverage of tasks_rcu_exit_srcu can be reduced instead.
>
> The current task is assumed not to be concurrently reapable at this
> stage of exit_notify() and therefore tasks_rcu_exit_srcu can be
> temporarily relaxed without breaking its constraints, providing a way
> out of the deadlock scenario.
>
> Fixes: 3f95aa81d265 ("rcu: Make TASKS_RCU handle tasks that are almost done exiting")
> Reported-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
> Cc: Eric W . Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 ++
> kernel/pid_namespace.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/kernel/pid_namespace.c b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> index f4f8cb0435b4..fc21c5d5fd5d 100644
> --- a/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid_namespace.c
> @@ -244,7 +244,24 @@ void zap_pid_ns_processes(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (pid_ns->pid_allocated == init_pids)
> break;
> + /*
> + * Release tasks_rcu_exit_srcu to avoid following deadlock:
> + *
> + * 1) TASK A unshare(CLONE_NEWPID)
> + * 2) TASK A fork() twice -> TASK B (child reaper for new ns)
> + * and TASK C
> + * 3) TASK B exits, kills TASK C, waits for TASK A to reap it
> + * 4) TASK A calls synchronize_rcu_tasks()
> + * -> synchronize_srcu(tasks_rcu_exit_srcu)
> + * 5) *DEADLOCK*
> + *
> + * It is considered safe to release tasks_rcu_exit_srcu here
> + * because we assume the current task can not be concurrently
> + * reaped at this point.
> + */
> + exit_tasks_rcu_stop();
> schedule();
> + exit_tasks_rcu_start();
> }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
Two questions.
1) Is there any chance you need the exit_task_rcu_stop() and
exit_tasks_rcu_start() around schedule in the part of this code that
calls kernel_wait4.
2) I keep thinking zap_pid_ns_processes() should be changed so that
after it sends SIGKILL to all of the relevant processes to not wait,
and instead have wait_consider_task simply not allow the
init process of the pid namespace to be reaped.
Am I right in thinking that such a change were to be made it would
make remove the deadlock without having to have any special code?
It is just tricky enough to do that I don't want to discourage your
simpler change but this looks like a case that makes the pain of
changing zap_pid_ns_processes worthwhile in the practice.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-30 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-25 13:54 [PATCH 0/3] rcu-tasks: Fix race against exiting pid_ns Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-25 13:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] rcu-tasks: Improve comments explaining tasks_rcu_exit_srcu purpose Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-25 13:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] rcu-tasks: Remove preemption disablement around srcu_read_[un]lock() calls Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-25 13:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] rcu-tasks: Fix synchronize_rcu_tasks() VS zap_pid_ns_processes() Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-30 18:37 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2022-12-02 19:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-02 22:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-12-02 23:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-12-04 0:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-12-06 16:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-12-07 14:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-07 20:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-12-07 20:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2022-12-09 20:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-29 0:22 ` [PATCH 0/3] rcu-tasks: Fix race against exiting pid_ns Paul E. McKenney
2022-11-29 9:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-11-29 14:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-12-02 22:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=871qpkqof8.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pengfei.xu@intel.com \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
/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).