Re: [PATCH] kfence: Avoid stalling work queue task without allocations

Marco Elver
2020-11-10T14:54:06Z

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 15:25, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:53 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > To toggle the allocation gates, we set up a delayed work that calls
> > toggle_allocation_gate(). Here we use wait_event() to await an
> > allocation and subsequently disable the static branch again. However, if
> > the kernel has stopped doing allocations entirely, we'd wait
> > indefinitely, and stall the worker task. This may also result in the
> > appropriate warnings if CONFIG_DETECT_HUNG_TASK=y.
> >
> > Therefore, introduce a 1 second timeout and use wait_event_timeout(). If
> > the timeout is reached, the static branch is disabled and a new delayed
> > work is scheduled to try setting up an allocation at a later time.
> >
> > Note that, this scenario is very unlikely during normal workloads once
> > the kernel has booted and user space tasks are running. It can, however,
> > happen during early boot after KFENCE has been enabled, when e.g.
> > running tests that do not result in any allocations.
> >
> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CADYN=9J0DQhizAGB0-jz4HOBBh+05kMBXb4c0cXMS7Qi5NAJiw@mail.gmail.com
> > Reported-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > ---
> > mm/kfence/core.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/kfence/core.c b/mm/kfence/core.c
> > index 9358f42a9a9e..933b197b8634 100644
> > --- a/mm/kfence/core.c
> > +++ b/mm/kfence/core.c
> > @@ -592,7 +592,11 @@ static void toggle_allocation_gate(struct work_struct *work)
> > /* Enable static key, and await allocation to happen. */
> > atomic_set(&allocation_gate, 0);
> > static_branch_enable(&kfence_allocation_key);
> > - wait_event(allocation_wait, atomic_read(&allocation_gate) != 0);
> > + /*
> > + * Await an allocation. Timeout after 1 second, in case the kernel stops
> > + * doing allocations, to avoid stalling this worker task for too long.
> > + */
> > + wait_event_timeout(allocation_wait, atomic_read(&allocation_gate) != 0, HZ);
>
> I wonder what happens if we get an allocation right when the timeout fires.
> Consider, another task already went to the slow path and is about to
> wake this task. This task wakes on timeout and subsequently enables
> static branch again. Now we can have 2 tasks on the slow path that
> both will wake this task. How will it be handled? Can it lead to some
> warnings or something?

wake_up() does not require tasks to be in the wait queue, nor is there
any requirement that it's exclusive (it takes the appropriate locks
unlike wake_up_locked()). One of the wake_up() calls will wake the
task, and the other is a noop. So this will work just fine.

Thanks,
-- Marco