From: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)
Cc: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>,
Hu Chunyu <chuhu@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling context
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 09:45:40 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230201124541.62104-1-wander@redhat.com> (raw)
Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
One practical example is splat inside inactive_task_timer(), which is
called in a interrupt context:
CPU: 1 PID: 2848 Comm: life Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W ---------
Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL388p Gen8, BIOS P70 07/15/2012
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
mark_lock_irq.cold+0x33/0xba
? stack_trace_save+0x4b/0x70
? save_trace+0x55/0x150
mark_lock+0x1e7/0x400
mark_usage+0x11d/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x30d/0x930
lock_acquire.part.0+0x9c/0x210
? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x3f/0x70
? trace_lock_acquire+0x38/0x140
? lock_acquire+0x30/0x80
? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
rt_spin_lock+0x27/0xe0
? refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
refill_obj_stock+0x3d/0x3a0
? inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
kmem_cache_free+0x357/0x560
inactive_task_timer+0x1ad/0x340
? switched_from_dl+0x2d0/0x2d0
__run_hrtimer+0x8a/0x1a0
__hrtimer_run_queues+0x91/0x130
hrtimer_interrupt+0x10f/0x220
__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x7b/0xd0
sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4f/0xd0
? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa/0x20
asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
RIP: 0033:0x7fff196bf6f5
Instead of calling __put_task_struct() directly, we defer it using
call_rcu(). A more natural approach would use a workqueue, but since
in PREEMPT_RT, we can't allocate dynamic memory from atomic context,
the code would become more complex because we would need to put the
work_struct instance in the task_struct and initialize it when we
allocate a new task_struct.
Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <chuhu@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/fork.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 9f7fe3541897..b2d0d62c9b9d 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ static inline void put_signal_struct(struct signal_struct *sig)
free_signal_struct(sig);
}
-void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
+static void ___put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
WARN_ON(!tsk->exit_state);
WARN_ON(refcount_read(&tsk->usage));
@@ -857,6 +857,26 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
sched_core_free(tsk);
free_task(tsk);
}
+
+static void __delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp)
+{
+ struct task_struct *task = container_of(rhp, struct task_struct, rcu);
+
+ ___put_task_struct(task);
+}
+
+void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
+{
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && (!preemptible() || !in_task()))
+ /*
+ * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
+ * in atomic context because it will indirectly
+ * acquire sleeping locks.
+ */
+ call_rcu(&tsk->rcu, __delayed_put_task_struct);
+ else
+ ___put_task_struct(tsk);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
--
2.39.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-02-01 12:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-01 12:45 Wander Lairson Costa [this message]
2023-02-02 18:37 ` [PATCH v3] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling context Oleg Nesterov
2023-02-02 19:55 ` Wander Lairson Costa
2023-02-02 20:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20230201124541.62104-1-wander@redhat.com \
--to=wander@redhat.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@Oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=chuhu@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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.