2019-05-28 20:10:09 +03:00
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
/* Copyright (c) 2016 Facebook
*/
# include "percpu_freelist.h"
int pcpu_freelist_init ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
{
int cpu ;
s - > freelist = alloc_percpu ( struct pcpu_freelist_head ) ;
if ( ! s - > freelist )
return - ENOMEM ;
for_each_possible_cpu ( cpu ) {
struct pcpu_freelist_head * head = per_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist , cpu ) ;
raw_spin_lock_init ( & head - > lock ) ;
head - > first = NULL ;
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_init ( & s - > extralist . lock ) ;
s - > extralist . first = NULL ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
return 0 ;
}
void pcpu_freelist_destroy ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
{
free_percpu ( s - > freelist ) ;
}
2020-02-24 17:01:40 +03:00
static inline void pcpu_freelist_push_node ( struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ,
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
{
node - > next = head - > first ;
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE ( head - > first , node ) ;
2020-02-24 17:01:40 +03:00
}
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push ( struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ,
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
{
raw_spin_lock ( & head - > lock ) ;
2020-02-24 17:01:40 +03:00
pcpu_freelist_push_node ( head , node ) ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
static inline bool pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra ( struct pcpu_freelist * s ,
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
{
if ( ! raw_spin_trylock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) )
return false ;
pcpu_freelist_push_node ( & s - > extralist , node ) ;
raw_spin_unlock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) ;
return true ;
}
static inline void ___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi ( struct pcpu_freelist * s ,
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
{
int cpu , orig_cpu ;
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
orig_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id ( ) ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
while ( 1 ) {
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
for_each_cpu_wrap ( cpu , cpu_possible_mask , orig_cpu ) {
struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
head = per_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist , cpu ) ;
if ( raw_spin_trylock ( & head - > lock ) ) {
pcpu_freelist_push_node ( head , node ) ;
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
return ;
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
}
/* cannot lock any per cpu lock, try extralist */
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
if ( pcpu_freelist_try_push_extra ( s , node ) )
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
return ;
}
}
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
void __pcpu_freelist_push ( struct pcpu_freelist * s ,
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
{
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
if ( in_nmi ( ) )
___pcpu_freelist_push_nmi ( s , node ) ;
else
___pcpu_freelist_push ( this_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist ) , node ) ;
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
}
void pcpu_freelist_push ( struct pcpu_freelist * s ,
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node )
{
unsigned long flags ;
local_irq_save ( flags ) ;
__pcpu_freelist_push ( s , node ) ;
local_irq_restore ( flags ) ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
}
void pcpu_freelist_populate ( struct pcpu_freelist * s , void * buf , u32 elem_size ,
u32 nr_elems )
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ;
2022-11-10 15:21:28 +03:00
unsigned int cpu , cpu_idx , i , j , n , m ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
2022-11-10 15:21:28 +03:00
n = nr_elems / num_possible_cpus ( ) ;
m = nr_elems % num_possible_cpus ( ) ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
2022-11-10 15:21:28 +03:00
cpu_idx = 0 ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
for_each_possible_cpu ( cpu ) {
head = per_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist , cpu ) ;
2022-11-10 15:21:28 +03:00
j = n + ( cpu_idx < m ? 1 : 0 ) ;
for ( i = 0 ; i < j ; i + + ) {
/* No locking required as this is not visible yet. */
pcpu_freelist_push_node ( head , buf ) ;
buf + = elem_size ;
}
cpu_idx + + ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
}
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
static struct pcpu_freelist_node * ___pcpu_freelist_pop ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ;
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node ;
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
int cpu ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
for_each_cpu_wrap ( cpu , cpu_possible_mask , raw_smp_processor_id ( ) ) {
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
head = per_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist , cpu ) ;
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if ( ! READ_ONCE ( head - > first ) )
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
continue ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
raw_spin_lock ( & head - > lock ) ;
node = head - > first ;
if ( node ) {
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE ( head - > first , node - > next ) ;
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
return node ;
}
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
}
/* per cpu lists are all empty, try extralist */
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if ( ! READ_ONCE ( s - > extralist . first ) )
return NULL ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_lock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) ;
node = s - > extralist . first ;
if ( node )
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE ( s - > extralist . first , node - > next ) ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) ;
return node ;
}
static struct pcpu_freelist_node *
___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
{
struct pcpu_freelist_head * head ;
struct pcpu_freelist_node * node ;
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
int cpu ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
for_each_cpu_wrap ( cpu , cpu_possible_mask , raw_smp_processor_id ( ) ) {
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
head = per_cpu_ptr ( s - > freelist , cpu ) ;
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if ( ! READ_ONCE ( head - > first ) )
2022-09-07 18:57:46 +03:00
continue ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
if ( raw_spin_trylock ( & head - > lock ) ) {
node = head - > first ;
if ( node ) {
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE ( head - > first , node - > next ) ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
return node ;
}
raw_spin_unlock ( & head - > lock ) ;
}
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
}
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
/* cannot pop from per cpu lists, try extralist */
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
if ( ! READ_ONCE ( s - > extralist . first ) | | ! raw_spin_trylock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) )
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
return NULL ;
node = s - > extralist . first ;
if ( node )
2022-06-10 05:33:07 +03:00
WRITE_ONCE ( s - > extralist . first , node - > next ) ;
bpf: Use raw_spin_trylock() for pcpu_freelist_push/pop in NMI
Recent improvements in LOCKDEP highlighted a potential A-A deadlock with
pcpu_freelist in NMI:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t stacktrace_build_id_nmi
[ 18.984807] ================================
[ 18.984807] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 18.984808] 5.9.0-rc6-01771-g1466de1330e1 #2967 Not tainted
[ 18.984809] --------------------------------
[ 18.984809] inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
[ 18.984810] test_progs/1990 [HC2[2]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 18.984810] ffffe8ffffc219c0 (&head->lock){....}-{2:2}, at: __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984813] {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
[ 18.984814] lock_acquire+0x175/0x7c0
[ 18.984814] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984815] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984815] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x31/0x40
[ 18.984816] htab_map_alloc+0xbbf/0xf40
[ 18.984816] __do_sys_bpf+0x5aa/0x3ed0
[ 18.984817] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40
[ 18.984818] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 18.984818] irq event stamp: 12
[...]
[ 18.984822] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 18.984823] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 18.984823]
[ 18.984824] CPU0
[ 18.984824] ----
[ 18.984824] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984826] <Interrupt>
[ 18.984826] lock(&head->lock);
[ 18.984827]
[ 18.984828] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 18.984828]
[ 18.984829] 2 locks held by test_progs/1990:
[...]
[ 18.984838] <NMI>
[ 18.984838] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0
[ 18.984839] lock_acquire+0x5c9/0x7c0
[ 18.984839] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984840] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984840] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[ 18.984841] ? __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984841] __pcpu_freelist_pop+0xe3/0x180
[ 18.984842] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x17/0x40
[ 18.984842] ? lock_release+0x6f0/0x6f0
[ 18.984843] __bpf_get_stackid+0x534/0xaf0
[ 18.984843] bpf_prog_1fd9e30e1438d3c5_oncpu+0x73/0x350
[ 18.984844] bpf_overflow_handler+0x12f/0x3f0
This is because pcpu_freelist_head.lock is accessed in both NMI and
non-NMI context. Fix this issue by using raw_spin_trylock() in NMI.
Since NMI interrupts non-NMI context, when NMI context tries to lock the
raw_spinlock, non-NMI context of the same CPU may already have locked a
lock and is blocked from unlocking the lock. For a system with N CPUs,
there could be N NMIs at the same time, and they may block N non-NMI
raw_spinlocks. This is tricky for pcpu_freelist_push(), where unlike
_pop(), failing _push() means leaking memory. This issue is more likely to
trigger in non-SMP system.
Fix this issue with an extra list, pcpu_freelist.extralist. The extralist
is primarily used to take _push() when raw_spin_trylock() failed on all
the per CPU lists. It should be empty most of the time. The following
table summarizes the behavior of pcpu_freelist in NMI and non-NMI:
non-NMI pop(): use _lock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are empty, check extralist;
if extralist is empty, return NULL.
non-NMI push(): use _lock(); only push to per CPU lists.
NMI pop(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked or empty, check extralist;
if extralist is locked or empty, return NULL.
NMI push(): use _trylock(); check per CPU lists first;
if all per CPU lists are locked; try push to extralist;
if extralist is also locked, keep trying on per CPU lists.
Reported-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201005165838.3735218-1-songliubraving@fb.com
2020-10-05 19:58:38 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & s - > extralist . lock ) ;
return node ;
}
struct pcpu_freelist_node * __pcpu_freelist_pop ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
{
if ( in_nmi ( ) )
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop_nmi ( s ) ;
return ___pcpu_freelist_pop ( s ) ;
2016-03-08 08:57:14 +03:00
}
2019-01-31 05:12:43 +03:00
struct pcpu_freelist_node * pcpu_freelist_pop ( struct pcpu_freelist * s )
{
struct pcpu_freelist_node * ret ;
unsigned long flags ;
local_irq_save ( flags ) ;
ret = __pcpu_freelist_pop ( s ) ;
local_irq_restore ( flags ) ;
return ret ;
}