From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] task_work: Consume only item at a time while invoking the callbacks.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:08:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z78SPz7VaVZpDOYg@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250226125048.GC8995@redhat.com>
Le Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:50:48PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov a écrit :
> On 02/21, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > Yi and syzbot managed to hang the task within task_run().
> >
> > The problem is
> > task_work_run() -> __fput() -> perf_release() ->
> > perf_event_release_kernel() -> _free_event() ->
> > perf_pending_task_sync() -> task_work_cancel() failed ->
> > rcuwait_wait_event().
> >
> > Once task_work_run() is running, the list of callbacks removed from the
> > task_struct and from this point on task_work_cancel() can't remove any
> > pending and not yet started work items.
>
> But can this patch really solve the problem?
>
> Suppose we have two tasks, T1 and T2.
>
> T1 does fd = perf_event_open(pid => T2->pid);
> T2 does fd = perf_event_open(pid => T1->pid);
>
> Now, both T1 and T2 do close(fd), call task_work_run(), dequeue the
> ____fput work, and finally call __fput(). Now suppose that both perf
> events fire before T1/T2 call perf_event_release_kernel/_free_event.
>
> Now, T1 and T2 will hang forever in perf_pending_task_sync() waiting
> for each other. task_work_cancel(current) can't succeed with or without
> this patch.
>
> No?
Duh!
So indeed, the wait/wake based solution is too fragile. Are we back to the
old serialized workqueue days flavour of deadlocks with task work?
Anyway the perf_pending_task()'s put_event() based solution thing should fix
that scenario too.
Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-26 13:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-21 17:05 [PATCH] task_work: Consume only item at a time while invoking the callbacks Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-02-23 22:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-25 14:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-02-25 16:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-25 22:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-02-26 13:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-26 14:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-26 14:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-02-26 18:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-26 14:16 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-02-26 14:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-26 14:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-02-26 12:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2025-02-26 13:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=Z78SPz7VaVZpDOYg@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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