srcu hung task panic

[paulmck@linux.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018@07:48:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018@04:00:53AM +0000, Krein, Dennis wrote:
> > I have a patch attached that fixes the problem for us.  I also tried a
> > version with an smb_mb() call added at end of rcu_segcblist_enqueue()
> > - but that turned out not to be needed.  I think the key part of
> > this is locking srcu_data in srcu_gp_start().  I also put in the
> > preempt_disable/enable in __call_srcu() so that it couldn't get scheduled
> > out and possibly moved to another CPU.  I had one hung task panic where
> > the callback that would complete the wait was properly set up but for some
> > reason the delayed work never happened.  Only thing I could determine to
> > cause that was if __call_srcu() got switched out after dropping spin lock.
> 
> Good show!!!
> 
> You are quite right, the srcu_data structure's ->lock
> must be held across the calls to rcu_segcblist_advance() and
> rcu_segcblist_accelerate().  Color me blind, given that I repeatedly
> looked at the "lockdep_assert_held(&ACCESS_PRIVATE(sp, lock));" and
> repeatedly misread it as "lockdep_assert_held(&ACCESS_PRIVATE(sdp,
> lock));".
> 
> A few questions and comments:
> 
> o	Are you OK with my adding your Signed-off-by as shown in the
> 	updated patch below?

Hmmm...  I either need your Signed-off-by or to have someone cleanroom
recreate the patch before I can send it upstream.  I would much prefer
to use your Signed-off-by so that you get due credit, but one way or
another I do need to fix this bug.

							Thanx, Paul

> o	I removed the #ifdefs because this is needed everywhere.
> 	However, I do agree that it can be quite helpful to use these
> 	while experimenting with different potential solutions.
> 
> o	Preemption is already disabled across all of srcu_gp_start()
> 	because the sp->lock is an interrupt-disabling lock.  This means
> 	that disabling preemption would have no effect.  I therefore
> 	removed the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable().
> 
> o	What sequence of events would lead to the work item never being
> 	executed?  Last I knew, workqueues were supposed to be robust
> 	against preemption.
> 
> I have added Christoph and Bart on CC (along with their Reported-by tags)
> because they were recently seeing an intermittent failure that might
> have been caused gby tyhis same bug.  Could you please check to see if
> the below patch fixes your problem, give or take the workqueue issue?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> commit 1c1d315dfb7049d0233b89948a3fbcb61ea15d26
> Author: Dennis Krein <Dennis.Krein at netapp.com>
> Date:   Fri Oct 26 07:38:24 2018 -0700
> 
>     srcu: Lock srcu_data structure in srcu_gp_start()
>     
>     The srcu_gp_start() function is called with the srcu_struct structure's
>     ->lock held, but not with the srcu_data structure's ->lock.  This is
>     problematic because this function accesses and updates the srcu_data
>     structure's ->srcu_cblist, which is protected by that lock.  Failing to
>     hold this lock can result in corruption of the SRCU callback lists,
>     which in turn can result in arbitrarily bad results.
>     
>     This commit therefore makes srcu_gp_start() acquire the srcu_data
>     structure's ->lock across the calls to rcu_segcblist_advance() and
>     rcu_segcblist_accelerate(), thus preventing this corruption.
>     
>     Reported-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche at acm.org>
>     Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Dennis Krein <Dennis.Krein at netapp.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.ibm.com>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 60f3236beaf7..697a2d7e8e8a 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -451,10 +451,12 @@ static void srcu_gp_start(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&ACCESS_PRIVATE(sp, lock));
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(ULONG_CMP_GE(sp->srcu_gp_seq, sp->srcu_gp_seq_needed));
> +	spin_lock_rcu_node(sdp);  /* Interrupts already disabled. */
>  	rcu_segcblist_advance(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
>  			      rcu_seq_current(&sp->srcu_gp_seq));
>  	(void)rcu_segcblist_accelerate(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
>  				       rcu_seq_snap(&sp->srcu_gp_seq));
> +	spin_unlock_rcu_node(sdp);  /* Interrupts remain disabled. */
>  	smp_mb(); /* Order prior store to ->srcu_gp_seq_needed vs. GP start. */
>  	rcu_seq_start(&sp->srcu_gp_seq);
>  	state = rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_seq));