From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
To: minyard@acm.org, linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a lockup in wait_for_completion() and friends
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:13:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e30aebd4-2d7e-f892-b31a-66ff2c7e474d@monom.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190508202759.13842-1-minyard@acm.org>
Hi Corey,
On 08.05.19 22:27, minyard@acm.org wrote:
> From: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
>
> The function call do_wait_for_common() has a race condition that
> can result in lockups waiting for completions. Adding the thread
> to (and removing the thread from) the wait queue for the completion
> is done outside the do loop in that function. However, if the thread
> is woken up with swake_up_locked(), that function will delete the
> entry from the wait queue. If that happens and another thread sneaks
> in and decrements the done count in the completion to zero, the
> loop will go around again, but the thread will no longer be in the
> wait queue, so there is no way to wake it up.
>
> Fix it by adding/removing the thread to/from the wait queue inside
> the do loop.
>
> Fixes: a04ff6b4ec4ee7e ("completion: Use simple wait queues")
> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>
Added Peter and lkml to the CC since this is mainline and not -rt only.
Thanks,
Daniel
> ---
> This looks like a fairly serious bug, I guess, but I've never seen a
> report on it before.
>
> I found it because I have an out-of-tree feature (hopefully in tree some
> day) that takes a core dump of a running process without killing it. It
> makes extensive use of completions, and the test code is fairly brutal.
> It didn't lock up on stock 4.19, but failed with the RT patches applied.
>
> The funny thing is, I've never seen this test code fail before on earlier
> releases, but it locks up pretty reliably on 4.19-rt. It looks like this
> bug goes back to at least the 4.4-rt kernel. But we haven't received any
> customer reports of failures.
>
> The feature and test are in a public tree if someone wants to try to
> reproduce this. But hopefully this is pretty obvious with the explaination.
>
> Also, you could put the DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE() outside the loop, I think,
> but maybe it's cleaner or safer to declare it in the loop? If someone
> cares I can test it that way.
>
> -corey
>
> kernel/sched/completion.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> index 755a58084978..4cde33cf8b28 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> @@ -70,10 +70,10 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
> long (*action)(long), long timeout, int state)
> {
> if (!x->done) {
> - DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(wait);
> -
> - __prepare_to_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
> do {
> + DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(wait);
> +
> + __prepare_to_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
> if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
> break;
> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> timeout = action(timeout);
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> + __finish_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
> } while (!x->done && timeout);
> - __finish_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
> if (!x->done)
> return timeout;
> }
>
next parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-13 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190508202759.13842-1-minyard@acm.org>
2019-05-13 12:13 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
2019-05-13 12:19 ` [PATCH] Fix a lockup in wait_for_completion() and friends Daniel Wagner
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=e30aebd4-2d7e-f892-b31a-66ff2c7e474d@monom.org \
--to=wagi@monom.org \
--cc=cminyard@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minyard@acm.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).