From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Drop fpregs lock before inheriting FPU permissions during clone
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 17:25:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o7tg8584.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221109113044.7ncdw6263o3msycl@techsingularity.net>
On Wed, Nov 09 2022 at 11:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/spinlock_rt.c:46
...
> The splat comes from fpu_inherit_perms() being called under fpregs_lock(),
> and us reaching the spin_lock_irq() therein due to fpu_state_size_dynamic()
> returning true despite static key __fpu_state_size_dynamic having never
> been enabled.
>
> Mike's assessment looks correct. fpregs_lock on PREEMPT_RT disables
> preemption only so the spin_lock_irq() in fpu_inherit_perms is unsafe
> and converting siglock to raw spinlock would be an unwelcome change.
> This problem exists since commit 9e798e9aa14c ("x86/fpu: Prepare fpu_clone()
> for dynamically enabled features"). While the bug triggering is probably a
> mistake for the affected machine and due to a bug that is not in mainline,
> spin_lock_irq within a preempt_disable section on PREEMPT_RT is problematic.
>
> In this specific context, it may not be necessary to hold fpregs_lock at
> all. The lock is necessary when editing the FPU registers or a tasks fpstate
> but in this case, the only write of any FP state in fpu_inherit_perms is
> for the new child which is not running yet so it cannot context switch or
> be borrowed by a kernel thread yet. Hence, fpregs_lock is not protecting
> anything in the new child until clone() completes. The siglock still needs
> to be acquired by fpu_inherit_perms as the read of the parents permissions
> has to be serialised.
That's correct and siglock is the real protection for the permissions.
> This is not tested as I did not access to a machine with Intel's
> eXtended Feature Disable (XFD) feature that enables the relevant path
> in fpu_inherit_perms and the bug is against a non-mainline kernel.
It's still entirely correct on mainline as there is no requirement to
hold fpregs_lock in this case
> Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-09 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-09 11:30 [RFC PATCH] x86: Drop fpregs lock before inheriting FPU permissions during clone Mel Gorman
2022-11-09 16:25 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2022-11-10 12:18 ` Mel Gorman
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=87o7tg8584.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
/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).