linux-stable.git/kernel/rcu/tasks.h, branch linux-6.1.y

Revert "rcu-tasks: Fix access non-existent percpu rtpcp variable in rcu_tasks_need_gpcb()"

2025-01-02T09:30:55+00:00

This reverts commit 224fd631c41b81697aa622d38615bfbf446b91cf which is
commit fd70e9f1d85f5323096ad313ba73f5fe3d15ea41 upstream.

It is reported to cause problems in testing, so revert it for now.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216-comic-handling-3bcf108cc465@wendy
Reported-by: Conor Dooley 
CC: Zhixu Liu 
Cc: Zqiang 
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay 
Cc: Sasha Levin 
Cc: Xiangyu Chen 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

rcu-tasks: Fix access non-existent percpu rtpcp variable in rcu_tasks_need_gpcb()

2024-12-14T18:53:56+00:00

commit fd70e9f1d85f5323096ad313ba73f5fe3d15ea41 upstream.

For kernels built with CONFIG_FORCE_NR_CPUS=y, the nr_cpu_ids is
defined as NR_CPUS instead of the number of possible cpus, this
will cause the following system panic:

smpboot: Allowing 4 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
...
setup_percpu: NR_CPUS:512 nr_cpumask_bits:512 nr_cpu_ids:512 nr_node_ids:1
...
BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffff9911c8c8
Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
CPU: 0 PID: 15 Comm: rcu_tasks_trace Tainted: G W
6.6.21 #1 5dc7acf91a5e8e9ac9dcfc35bee0245691283ea6
RIP: 0010:rcu_tasks_need_gpcb+0x25d/0x2c0
RSP: 0018:ffffa371c00a3e60 EFLAGS: 00010082
CR2: ffffffff9911c8c8 CR3: 000000040fa20005 CR4: 00000000001706f0
Call Trace:

? __die+0x23/0x80
? page_fault_oops+0xa4/0x180
? exc_page_fault+0x152/0x180
? asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x40
? rcu_tasks_need_gpcb+0x25d/0x2c0
? __pfx_rcu_tasks_kthread+0x40/0x40
rcu_tasks_one_gp+0x69/0x180
rcu_tasks_kthread+0x94/0xc0
kthread+0xe8/0x140
? __pfx_kthread+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork+0x34/0x80
? __pfx_kthread+0x40/0x40
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x80


Considering that there may be holes in the CPU numbers, use the
maximum possible cpu number, instead of nr_cpu_ids, for configuring
enqueue and dequeue limits.

[ neeraj.upadhyay: Fix htmldocs build error reported by Stephen Rothwell ]

Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/CALMA0xaTSMN+p4xUXkzrtR5r6k7hgoswcaXx7baR_z9r5jjskw@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
Reported-by: Zhixu Liu 
Signed-off-by: Zqiang 
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin 
[Xiangyu: BP to fix CVE:CVE-2024-49926, minor conflict resolution]
Signed-off-by: Xiangyu Chen 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

rcu: Dump memory object info if callback function is invalid

2024-08-29T15:30:28+00:00

[ Upstream commit 2cbc482d325ee58001472c4359b311958c4efdd1 ]

When a structure containing an RCU callback rhp is (incorrectly) freed
and reallocated after rhp is passed to call_rcu(), it is not unusual for
rhp->func to be set to NULL. This defeats the debugging prints used by
__call_rcu_common() in kernels built with CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y,
which expect to identify the offending code using the identity of this
function.

And in kernels build without CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y, things
are even worse, as can be seen from this splat:

Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0
... ...
PC is at 0x0
LR is at rcu_do_batch+0x1c0/0x3b8
... ...
 (rcu_do_batch) from (rcu_core+0x1d4/0x284)
 (rcu_core) from (__do_softirq+0x24c/0x344)
 (__do_softirq) from (__irq_exit_rcu+0x64/0x108)
 (__irq_exit_rcu) from (irq_exit+0x8/0x10)
 (irq_exit) from (__handle_domain_irq+0x74/0x9c)
 (__handle_domain_irq) from (gic_handle_irq+0x8c/0x98)
 (gic_handle_irq) from (__irq_svc+0x5c/0x94)
 (__irq_svc) from (arch_cpu_idle+0x20/0x3c)
 (arch_cpu_idle) from (default_idle_call+0x4c/0x78)
 (default_idle_call) from (do_idle+0xf8/0x150)
 (do_idle) from (cpu_startup_entry+0x18/0x20)
 (cpu_startup_entry) from (0xc01530)

This commit therefore adds calls to mem_dump_obj(rhp) to output some
information, for example:

  slab kmalloc-256 start ffff410c45019900 pointer offset 0 size 256

This provides the rough size of the memory block and the offset of the
rcu_head structure, which as least provides at least a few clues to help
locate the problem. If the problem is reproducible, additional slab
debugging can be enabled, for example, CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y, which can
provide significantly more information.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu/tasks: Fix stale task snaphot for Tasks Trace

2024-08-03T06:48:52+00:00

[ Upstream commit 399ced9594dfab51b782798efe60a2376cd5b724 ]

When RCU-TASKS-TRACE pre-gp takes a snapshot of the current task running
on all online CPUs, no explicit ordering synchronizes properly with a
context switch.  This lack of ordering can permit the new task to miss
pre-grace-period update-side accesses.  The following diagram, courtesy
of Paul, shows the possible bad scenario:

        CPU 0                                           CPU 1
        -----                                           -----

        // Pre-GP update side access
        WRITE_ONCE(*X, 1);
        smp_mb();
        r0 = rq->curr;
                                                        RCU_INIT_POINTER(rq->curr, TASK_B)
                                                        spin_unlock(rq)
                                                        rcu_read_lock_trace()
                                                        r1 = X;
        /* ignore TASK_B */

Either r0==TASK_B or r1==1 is needed but neither is guaranteed.

One possible solution to solve this is to wait for an RCU grace period
at the beginning of the RCU-tasks-trace grace period before taking the
current tasks snaphot. However this would introduce large additional
latencies to RCU-tasks-trace grace periods.

Another solution is to lock the target runqueue while taking the current
task snapshot. This ensures that the update side sees the latest context
switch and subsequent context switches will see the pre-grace-period
update side accesses.

This commit therefore adds runqueue locking to cpu_curr_snapshot().

Fixes: e386b6725798 ("rcu-tasks: Eliminate RCU Tasks Trace IPIs to online CPUs")
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Fix show_rcu_tasks_trace_gp_kthread buffer overflow

2024-06-12T09:03:05+00:00

[ Upstream commit cc5645fddb0ce28492b15520306d092730dffa48 ]

There is a possibility of buffer overflow in
show_rcu_tasks_trace_gp_kthread() if counters, passed
to sprintf() are huge. Counter numbers, needed for this
are unrealistically high, but buffer overflow is still
possible.

Use snprintf() with buffer size instead of sprintf().

Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.

Fixes: edf3775f0ad6 ("rcu-tasks: Add count for idle tasks on offline CPUs")
Signed-off-by: Nikita Kiryushin 
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Provide rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp()

2024-01-25T23:27:26+00:00

[ Upstream commit e6c86c513f440bec5f1046539c7e3c6c653842da ]

As an accident of implementation, an RCU Tasks Trace grace period also
acts as an RCU grace period.  However, this could change at any time.
This commit therefore creates an rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp() that currently
returns true to codify this accident.  Code relying on this accident
must call this function to verify that this accident is still happening.

Reported-by: Hou Tao 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov 
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau 
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221014113946.965131-2-houtao@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov 
Stable-dep-of: 876673364161 ("bpf: Defer the free of inner map when necessary")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Avoid pr_info() with spin lock in cblist_init_generic()

2023-07-27T06:50:33+00:00

[ Upstream commit 5fc8cbe4cf0fd34ded8045c385790c3bf04f6785 ]

pr_info() is called with rtp->cbs_gbl_lock spin lock locked.  Because
pr_info() calls printk() that might sleep, this will result in BUG
like below:

[    0.206455] cblist_init_generic: Setting adjustable number of callback queues.
[    0.206463]
[    0.206464] =============================
[    0.206464] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[    0.206465] 5.19.0-00428-g9de1f9c8ca51 #5 Not tainted
[    0.206466] -----------------------------
[    0.206466] swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
[    0.206467] ffffffffa0167a58 (&port_lock_key){....}-{3:3}, at: serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[    0.206473] other info that might help us debug this:
[    0.206473] context-{5:5}
[    0.206474] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
[    0.206474]  #0: ffffffff9eb597e0 (rcu_tasks.cbs_gbl_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic.constprop.0+0x14/0x1f0
[    0.206478]  #1: ffffffff9eb579c0 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: _printk+0x63/0x7e
[    0.206482]  #2: ffffffff9ea77780 (console_owner){....}-{0:0}, at: console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x111/0x330
[    0.206485] stack backtrace:
[    0.206486] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.19.0-00428-g9de1f9c8ca51 #5
[    0.206488] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.0-1.fc36 04/01/2014
[    0.206489] Call Trace:
[    0.206490]  
[    0.206491]  dump_stack_lvl+0x6a/0x9f
[    0.206493]  __lock_acquire.cold+0x2d7/0x2fe
[    0.206496]  ? stack_trace_save+0x46/0x70
[    0.206497]  lock_acquire+0xd1/0x2f0
[    0.206499]  ? serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[    0.206500]  ? __lock_acquire+0x5c7/0x2720
[    0.206502]  _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3d/0x90
[    0.206504]  ? serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[    0.206506]  serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[    0.206508]  console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x180/0x330
[    0.206511]  console_unlock+0xf7/0x1f0
[    0.206512]  vprintk_emit+0xf7/0x330
[    0.206514]  _printk+0x63/0x7e
[    0.206516]  cblist_init_generic.constprop.0.cold+0x24/0x32
[    0.206518]  rcu_init_tasks_generic+0x5/0xd9
[    0.206522]  kernel_init_freeable+0x15b/0x2a2
[    0.206523]  ? rest_init+0x160/0x160
[    0.206526]  kernel_init+0x11/0x120
[    0.206527]  ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
[    0.206530]  
[    0.207018] cblist_init_generic: Setting shift to 1 and lim to 1.

This patch moves pr_info() so that it is called without
rtp->cbs_gbl_lock locked.

Signed-off-by: Shigeru Yoshida 
Tested-by: "Zhang, Qiang1" 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using never-onlined CPUs

2023-07-19T14:21:01+00:00

[ Upstream commit 401b0de3ae4fa49d1014c8941e26d9a25f37e7cf ]

The rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() function relies on queue_work_on() to silently
fall back to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND when the specified CPU is offline.  However,
the queue_work_on() function's silent fallback mechanism relies on that
CPU having been online at some time in the past.  When queue_work_on()
is passed a CPU that has never been online, workqueue lockups ensue,
which can be bad for your kernel's general health and well-being.

This commit therefore checks whether a given CPU has ever been online,
and, if not substitutes WORK_CPU_UNBOUND in the subsequent call to
queue_work_on().  Why not simply omit the queue_work_on() call entirely?
Because this function is flooding callback-invocation notifications
to all CPUs, and must deal with possibilities that include a sparse
cpu_possible_mask.

This commit also moves the setting of the rcu_data structure's
->beenonline field to rcu_cpu_starting(), which executes on the
incoming CPU before that CPU has ever enabled interrupts.  This ensures
that the required workqueues are present.  In addition, because the
incoming CPU has not yet enabled its interrupts, there cannot yet have
been any softirq handlers running on this CPU, which means that the
WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->beenonline) within the RCU_SOFTIRQ handler cannot
have triggered yet.

Fixes: d363f833c6d88 ("rcu-tasks: Use workqueues for multiple rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() invocations")
Reported-by: Tejun Heo 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Handle queue-shrink/callback-enqueue race condition

2023-03-10T08:33:48+00:00

[ Upstream commit a4fcfbee8f6274f9b3f9a71dd5b03e6772ce33f3 ]

The rcu_tasks_need_gpcb() determines whether or not: (1) There are
callbacks needing another grace period, (2) There are callbacks ready
to be invoked, and (3) It would be a good time to shrink back down to a
single-CPU callback list.  This third case is interesting because some
other CPU might be adding new callbacks, which might suddenly make this
a very bad time to be shrinking.

This is currently handled by requiring call_rcu_tasks_generic() to
enqueue callbacks under the protection of rcu_read_lock() and requiring
rcu_tasks_need_gpcb() to wait for an RCU grace period to elapse before
finalizing the transition.  This works well in practice.

Unfortunately, the current code assumes that a grace period whose end is
detected by the poll_state_synchronize_rcu() in the second "if" condition
actually ended before the earlier code counted the callbacks queued on
CPUs other than CPU 0 (local variable "ncbsnz").  Given the current code,
it is possible that a long-delayed call_rcu_tasks_generic() invocation
will queue a callback on a non-zero CPU after these CPUs have had their
callbacks counted and zero has been stored to ncbsnz.  Such a callback
would trigger the WARN_ON_ONCE() in the second "if" statement.

To see this, consider the following sequence of events:

o	CPU 0 invokes rcu_tasks_one_gp(), and counts fewer than
	rcu_task_collapse_lim callbacks.  It sees at least one
	callback queued on some other CPU, thus setting ncbsnz
	to a non-zero value.

o	CPU 1 invokes call_rcu_tasks_generic() and loads 42 from
	->percpu_enqueue_lim.  It therefore decides to enqueue its
	callback onto CPU 1's callback list, but is delayed.

o	CPU 0 sees the rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero and that the number
	of callbacks does not exceed rcu_task_collapse_lim.  It therefore
	checks percpu_enqueue_lim, and sees that its value is greater
	than the value one.  CPU 0 therefore  starts the shift back
	to a single callback list.  It sets ->percpu_enqueue_lim to 1,
	but CPU 1 has already read the old value of 42.  It also gets
	a grace-period state value from get_state_synchronize_rcu().

o	CPU 0 sees that ncbsnz is non-zero in its second "if" statement,
	so it declines to finalize the shrink operation.

o	CPU 0 again invokes rcu_tasks_one_gp(), and counts fewer than
	rcu_task_collapse_lim callbacks.  It also sees that there are
	no callback queued on any other CPU, and thus sets ncbsnz to zero.

o	CPU 1 resumes execution and enqueues its callback onto its own
	list.  This invalidates the value of ncbsnz.

o	CPU 0 sees the rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero and that the number
	of callbacks does not exceed rcu_task_collapse_lim.  It therefore
	checks percpu_enqueue_lim, but sees that its value is already
	unity.	It therefore does not get a new grace-period state value.

o	CPU 0 sees that rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero, ncbsnz is zero,
	and that poll_state_synchronize_rcu() says that the grace period
	has completed.  it therefore finalizes the shrink operation,
	setting ->percpu_dequeue_lim to the value one.

o	CPU 0 does a debug check, scanning the other CPUs' callback lists.
	It sees that CPU 1's list has a callback, so it (rightly)
	triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE().  After all, the new value of
	->percpu_dequeue_lim says to not bother looking at CPU 1's
	callback list, which means that this callback will never be
	invoked.  This can result in hangs and maybe even OOMs.

Based on long experience with rcutorture, this is an extremely
low-probability race condition, but it really can happen, especially in
preemptible kernels or within guest OSes.

This commit therefore checks for completion of the grace period
before counting callbacks.  With this change, in the above failure
scenario CPU 0 would know not to prematurely end the shrink operation
because the grace period would not have completed before the count
operation started.

[ paulmck: Adjust grace-period end rather than adding RCU reader. ]
[ paulmck: Avoid spurious WARN_ON_ONCE() with ->percpu_dequeue_lim check. ]

Signed-off-by: Zqiang 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rcu-tasks: Make rude RCU-Tasks work well with CPU hotplug

2023-03-10T08:33:48+00:00

[ Upstream commit ea5c8987fef20a8cca07e428aa28bc64649c5104 ]

The synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() function invokes rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
to wait one rude RCU-tasks grace period.  The rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
function in turn checks if there is only a single online CPU.  If so, it
will immediately return, because a call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
is by definition a grace period on a single-CPU system.  (We could
have blocked!)

Unfortunately, this check uses num_online_cpus() without synchronization,
which can result in too-short grace periods.  To see this, consider the
following scenario:

        CPU0                                   CPU1 (going offline)
                                          migration/1 task:
                                      cpu_stopper_thread
                                       -> take_cpu_down
                                          -> _cpu_disable
                                           (dec __num_online_cpus)
                                          ->cpuhp_invoke_callback
                                                preempt_disable
                                                access old_data0
           task1
 del old_data0                                  .....
 synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
 task1 schedule out
 ....
 task2 schedule in
 rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
     ->__num_online_cpus == 1
       ->return
 ....
 task1 schedule in
 ->free old_data0
                                                preempt_enable

When CPU1 decrements __num_online_cpus, its value becomes 1.  However,
CPU1 has not finished going offline, and will take one last trip through
the scheduler and the idle loop before it actually stops executing
instructions.  Because synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() is mostly used for
tracing, and because both the scheduler and the idle loop can be traced,
this means that CPU0's prematurely ended grace period might disrupt the
tracing on CPU1.  Given that this disruption might include CPU1 executing
instructions in memory that was just now freed (and maybe reallocated),
this is a matter of some concern.

This commit therefore removes that problematic single-CPU check from the
rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp() function.  This dispenses with the single-CPU
optimization, but there is no evidence indicating that this optimization
is important.  In addition, synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic() contains a
similar optimization (albeit only for early boot), which also splats.
(As in exactly why are you invoking synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() so
early in boot, anyway???)

It is OK for the synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() function's check to be
unsynchronized because the only times that this check can evaluate to
true is when there is only a single CPU running with preemption
disabled.

While in the area, this commit also fixes a minor bug in which a
call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() would instead be attributed to
synchronize_rcu_tasks().

[ paulmck: Add "synchronize_" prefix and "()" suffix. ]

Signed-off-by: Zqiang 
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin