From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C61EC433B4 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 23:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F04B613E1 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 23:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238099AbhDEX1H (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:27:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44550 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232292AbhDEX1E (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:27:04 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf29.google.com (mail-qv1-xf29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01548C06174A for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf29.google.com with SMTP id o19so6288431qvu.0 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=dgrgz6s6MuTmt3woCtx9DD4I5lovyoCGjc37MCiv5qA=; b=egq7hxnq9RPKsnMJc3urIAsaEK+XvjB6xArSWcgy0U8oSuzD4ANBsScIKCtxQHy49v t2M6OWgG+5wTyYESHOblGQarJDgOTBoDx0jD2aZEi2Smw5ZtlI+LTLh6o8b1aFUWyoMG ipoTVfbj1MFhCiwTT7/bnIQ4x3sQAwApZzHg7FLfb52uhTeAR8uHiLebKKZAmk01A5iS xY/PTN7z4sCHr8RF/LEnn0lXT8Hil6CpNDADEKSTe+2+boSEFicy78feVO20K0GZ3wP3 XdlpPRrbhb2pQ6utRBd+Q9pN41CL7HTNEeqH8cPP6KGQ78Sj8p4ZS3uBPhFsJArCIfoJ WCMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=dgrgz6s6MuTmt3woCtx9DD4I5lovyoCGjc37MCiv5qA=; b=UNNKXhm5WF+F4oQOxIaD92nB3LUiShlX6Lplh+VQDpS+Mgr6alZfK8XhAXANgEndmo DxUkIgMevb5Xf8ZYstpXC3OhgWhQUpoloqLKEXbGtNMg8ehZFhU/YUYBblEDlLtReXrt LKbjOPldBWf6h3tBZIfXJQuIBg/APjvps+HO5iqoyIE3I7Emtqc9EtHtsbCM+iJHeuAZ qDIU41Ihrd78D7lA1iy9Ht1BsE1pqpDi66g45De9Q0FH+dDtixuIUedMSJ8yqwFjXgph bWtmknDirWos3VP0yVo+i8QdJ4FXBI7+udZhZmGasF9FCYLdytBeHkAQJ53wJmeZGjmC OrcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531nGCQBJqye7bddkEDXEFbsmC2jvGFIXDl3fbLoJ87dNP+T66yE AVFDA3f+HsZktxtJ7CIlRTA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyF6kzzgz/XDuuhxCvul3ZfMSvN+BXnaifSY57hyStOw7YdAwfjEQSCqdI4iq4Ho3hgHFGO+A== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d7ca:: with SMTP id g10mr25528734qvj.16.1617665217064; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com (auth1-smtp.messagingengine.com. [66.111.4.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e14sm13154081qte.78.2021.04.05.16.26.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailauth.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4886E27C0054; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:26:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:26:56 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudejfedgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne goufhushhpvggtthffohhmrghinhculdegledmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggj sehttdortddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeeuohhquhhnucfhvghnghcuoegsohhquhhnrdhfvg hnghesghhmrghilhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvdevteeludelffeitdef tdfgvddvheduueeuvdegvdfgkeeuledthedtudevveejnecuffhomhgrihhnpehshiiikh grlhhlvghrrdgrphhpshhpohhtrdgtohhmpdhgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhenucfkphepudef uddruddtjedrudegjedruddvieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmh epmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhquhhnodhmvghsmhhtphgruhhthhhpvghrshhonhgrlhhi thihqdeiledvgeehtdeigedqudejjeekheehhedvqdgsohhquhhnrdhfvghngheppehgmh grihhlrdgtohhmsehfihigmhgvrdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (unknown [131.107.147.126]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 233631080054; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 19:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 07:25:44 +0800 From: Boqun Feng To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Gleixner , syzbot , john.stultz@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in get_timespec64 Message-ID: References: <0000000000000e025b05bf2a430b@google.com> <87mtud4wfi.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20210404214030.GB2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210405030855.GG2531743@casper.infradead.org> <20210405040125.GF2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210405043038.GA31091@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210405172752.GK2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210405172752.GK2696@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 10:27:52AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 01:23:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:30:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:01:25PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:08:55AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 02:40:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 10:38:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 04 2021 at 12:05, syzbot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc + ... > > > > > > > > > > > > And a couple more... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HEAD commit: 5e46d1b7 reiserfs: update reiserfs_xattrs_initialized() co.. > > > > > > > > git tree: upstream > > > > > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1125f831d00000 > > > > > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=78ef1d159159890 > > > > > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=88e4f02896967fe1ab0d > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+88e4f02896967fe1ab0d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > > > > > > > 5.12.0-rc5-syzkaller #0 Not tainted > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > > > kernel/sched/core.c:8294 Illegal context switch in RCU-sched read-side critical section! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 0 > > > > > > > > 3 locks held by syz-executor.4/8418: > > > > > > > > #0: > > > > > > > > ffff8880751d2b28 > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > &p->pi_lock > > > > > > > > ){-.-.}-{2:2} > > > > > > > > , at: try_to_wake_up+0x98/0x14a0 kernel/sched/core.c:3345 > > > > > > > > #1: > > > > > > > > ffff8880b9d35258 > > > > > > > > ( > > > > > > > > &rq->lock > > > > > > > > ){-.-.}-{2:2} > > > > > > > > , at: rq_lock kernel/sched/sched.h:1321 [inline] > > > > > > > > , at: ttwu_queue kernel/sched/core.c:3184 [inline] > > > > > > > > , at: try_to_wake_up+0x5e6/0x14a0 kernel/sched/core.c:3464 > > > > > > > > #2: ffff8880b9d1f948 (&per_cpu_ptr(group->pcpu, cpu)->seq){-.-.}-{0:0}, at: psi_task_change+0x142/0x220 kernel/sched/psi.c:807 > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks similar to syzbot+dde0cc33951735441301@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > in that rcu_sleep_check() sees an RCU lock held, but the later call to > > > > > > lockdep_print_held_locks() does not. Did something change recently that > > > > > > could let the ->lockdep_depth counter get out of sync with the actual > > > > > > number of locks held? > > > > > > > > > > Dmitri had a different theory here: > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/syzkaller-bugs/c/FmYvfZCZzqA/m/nc2CXUgsAgAJ > > > > > > > > There is always room for more than one bug. ;-) > > > > > > > > He says "one-off false positives". I was afraid of that... > > > > > > And both the examples I have been copied on today are consistent with > > > debug_locks getting zeroed (e.g., via a call to __debug_locks_off()) > > > in the midst of a call to rcu_sleep_check(). But I would expect to see > > > a panic or another splat if that were to happen. > > > > > > Dmitry's example did have an additional splat, but I would expect the > > > RCU-related one to come second. Again, there is always room for more > > > than one bug. > > > > > > On the other hand, there are a lot more callers to debug_locks_off() > > > than there were last I looked into this. And both of these splats > > > are consistent with an interrupt in the middle of rcu_sleep_check(), > > > and that interrupt's handler invoking debug_locks_off(), but without > > > printing anything to the console. Does that sequence of events ring a > > > bell for anyone? > > > > > > If this is the new normal, I could make RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() recheck > > > debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() after evaluating the condition, but with > > > a memory barrier immediately before the recheck. But I am not at all > > > excited by doing this on speculation. Especially given that doing > > > so might be covering up some other bug. > > > > > > > Just check the original console log and find: > > > > [ 356.696686][ T8418] ============================= > > [ 356.696692][ T8418] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > [ 356.700193][T14782] ==================================== > > [ 356.704548][ T8418] 5.12.0-rc5-syzkaller #0 Not tainted > > [ 356.729981][ T8418] ----------------------------- > > [ 356.732473][T14782] WARNING: iou-sqp-14780/14782 still has locks held! > > > > , so there are two warnnings here, one is from lockdep_rcu_suspisous() > > and the other is from print_held_locks_bug(). I think this is what > > happened: > > > > in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(): > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() // this is true and at this time debug_locks = 1 > > > > // lockdep detects a lock bug, set debug_locks = 0 > > > > && !__warned // true > > && (c)) // "c" is a lock_is_held(), which will always returns true if debug_locks == 0! > > > > the cause of the problem is that RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() in fact read > > debug_locks twice and get different values. > > > > But if you change the ordering of two reads, probably can avoid the > > problem: > > > > First read: > > lock_is_held(); // true if 1) lock is really held or 2) lockdep is off > > > > Second read: > > debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(); // if lockdep is not off, we know > > // that the first read got correct > > // value, otherwise we just ignore > > // the first read, because either > > // there is a bug reported between > > // two reads, or lockdep is already > > // off when the first read happens. > > > > So maybe something below: > > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > index bd04f722714f..d11bee5d9347 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \ > > do { \ > > static bool __section(".data.unlikely") __warned; \ > > - if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \ > > + if ((c) && debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned) { \ > > __warned = true; \ > > lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \ > > } \ > > Good point -- if we check debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() after the condition, > then we will reject false positives in cases where debug_locks was switched > to zero out from under us. > > However, we do need ordering. The "c" usually contains lock_is_held(), > which also checks debug_locks, but from some other translation unit. > Back in the day, the translation-unit boundaries would provide the needed > ordering, but LTO... > > In addition, the "debug_locks = 0" was originally supposed to be a hint > that the report might be a false positive. It is clear that this needs > to be made explicit. > > Taking all this together, how about the following? (The intent is > that the changes to lockdep_rcu_suspicious() will be in a separate > commit.) > Looks good to me ;-) Regards, Boqun > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > index 9455476..1199ffd 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \ > do { \ > static bool __section(".data.unlikely") __warned; \ > - if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \ > + if ((c) && debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned) { \ > __warned = true; \ > lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \ > } \ > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index c6d0c1dc..80065cd 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -6387,6 +6387,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void lockdep_sys_exit(void) > void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s) > { > struct task_struct *curr = current; > + int dl = READ_ONCE(debug_locks); > > /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */ > pr_warn("\n"); > @@ -6396,11 +6397,12 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s) > pr_warn("-----------------------------\n"); > pr_warn("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s); > pr_warn("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n"); > - pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n", > + pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n%s", > !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online() > ? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n" > : "", > - rcu_scheduler_active, debug_locks); > + rcu_scheduler_active, dl, > + dl ? "" : "Possible false positive due to lockdep disabling via debug_locks = 0\n"); > > /* > * If a CPU is in the RCU-free window in idle (ie: in the section > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > index b95ae86..dd94a60 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_callback_map); > > noinstr int notrace debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void) > { > - return rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE && debug_locks && > + return rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE && READ_ONCE(debug_locks) && > current->lockdep_recursion == 0; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled);