Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

[Andrew Cooper]

Hello,

I was triaging a Coverity issue (1055455) which was complaining about
spinlock inbalance in common/trace.c:424.

First of all, there is a latent bug here using "int flags" in a
irqsave/irqrestore.  It will be safe until bit 31 of RFLAGS is defined,
but will introduce subtle corruption thereafter.

This bug was not caught by the compiler because of the
spin_lock_irqsave() macro which has slightly non-function-like
semantics.  Would it be acceptable to change spin_lock_irqsave() into a
static inline so can be properly typed?  (This would come with a huge
amount of code churn as the function would have to take flags by pointer)

As for the spinlocks, while I as the programmer am fairly sure that
"&per_cpu(t_lock, i)" is unlikely to change, coverity takes into account
that updates to __per_cpu_offset[i] have no protection.  Because of
RELOC_HIDE(), gcc can't hoist the per_cpu() calculation, but will run
from register cached values of per_cpu__t_lock and __per_cpu_offset[i],
so is guaranteed to find the same lock both times even if
__per_cpu_offset[i] changes.

However, it occurs to me that there is no protection between
for_each_online_cpu() finding a bit set in the cpu_online_map and safely
using per_cpu() to poke at another cpus data.  One solution seems to be
to make use of {get,put}_cpu_maps() but this seems overkill especially
as the innards of a for_each_online_cpu() loop only care about one
particular pcpu not disappearing under its feet.

Would it be sensible to have RW locks for each pcpu (specifically not a
per_cpu lock - array of size nr_cpu_ids probably) specifically for the
purpose of playing with another pcpus data?  Hopefully this shouldn't
cause too much overhead, but there are a large number of
for_each_online_cpu() calls which would need protecting.

~Andrew

Re: Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

[Keir Fraser]

On 17/10/2013 20:34, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

> As for the spinlocks, while I as the programmer am fairly sure that
> "&per_cpu(t_lock, i)" is unlikely to change, coverity takes into account
> that updates to __per_cpu_offset[i] have no protection.  Because of
> RELOC_HIDE(), gcc can't hoist the per_cpu() calculation, but will run
> from register cached values of per_cpu__t_lock and __per_cpu_offset[i],
> so is guaranteed to find the same lock both times even if
> __per_cpu_offset[i] changes.
> 
> However, it occurs to me that there is no protection between
> for_each_online_cpu() finding a bit set in the cpu_online_map and safely
> using per_cpu() to poke at another cpus data.  One solution seems to be
> to make use of {get,put}_cpu_maps() but this seems overkill especially
> as the innards of a for_each_online_cpu() loop only care about one
> particular pcpu not disappearing under its feet.

CPUs are taken offline in a stop_machine_run environment, *and* the
__per_cpu_offset[i] change is done via RCU. We're safe here I'm sure.

 -- Keir

Re: Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 17.10.13 at 21:34, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> I was triaging a Coverity issue (1055455) which was complaining about
> spinlock inbalance in common/trace.c:424.
> 
> First of all, there is a latent bug here using "int flags" in a
> irqsave/irqrestore.  It will be safe until bit 31 of RFLAGS is defined,
> but will introduce subtle corruption thereafter.
> 
> This bug was not caught by the compiler because of the
> spin_lock_irqsave() macro which has slightly non-function-like
> semantics.  Would it be acceptable to change spin_lock_irqsave() into a
> static inline so can be properly typed?  (This would come with a huge
> amount of code churn as the function would have to take flags by pointer)

Why not simply add

BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(f) != sizeof(_spin_lock_irqsave(l)))

(or equivalent in case of header dependency issues) to the
macro?

But then again I don't see the corruption to occur when RFLAGS
beyond bit 31 would become defined: the flags get passed to
local_irq_restore() only, and that one's effect is "defined" to set
IF to the intended state - what it does with the other flags isn't
really defined (and in fact I wonder whether it really is correct
to use a plain POPF there - imagine code fiddling with e.g. DF
at the same time as using the proper abstractions to control IF).

Jan

Re: Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

[Andrew Cooper]

On 18/10/13 09:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.10.13 at 21:34, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> I was triaging a Coverity issue (1055455) which was complaining about
>> spinlock inbalance in common/trace.c:424.
>>
>> First of all, there is a latent bug here using "int flags" in a
>> irqsave/irqrestore.  It will be safe until bit 31 of RFLAGS is defined,
>> but will introduce subtle corruption thereafter.
>>
>> This bug was not caught by the compiler because of the
>> spin_lock_irqsave() macro which has slightly non-function-like
>> semantics.  Would it be acceptable to change spin_lock_irqsave() into a
>> static inline so can be properly typed?  (This would come with a huge
>> amount of code churn as the function would have to take flags by pointer)
> Why not simply add
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(f) != sizeof(_spin_lock_irqsave(l)))
>
> (or equivalent in case of header dependency issues) to the
> macro?
>
> But then again I don't see the corruption to occur when RFLAGS
> beyond bit 31 would become defined: the flags get passed to
> local_irq_restore() only, and that one's effect is "defined" to set
> IF to the intended state - what it does with the other flags isn't
> really defined (and in fact I wonder whether it really is correct
> to use a plain POPF there - imagine code fiddling with e.g. DF
> at the same time as using the proper abstractions to control IF).
>
> Jan
>

The BUILD_BUG_ON() is a rather more simple solution to the problem.

Also changing local_irq_restore() to a conditional sti will also be a
good improvement.  I shall see about spinning a patch for these issues.

~Andrew

Re: Problems with spin_lock_irqsave() and for_each_online_cpu()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 18.10.13 at 16:55, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> Also changing local_irq_restore() to a conditional sti will also be a
> good improvement.  I shall see about spinning a patch for these issues.

A conditional sti or cli you meant.

Jan