Re: [PATCH 1/1] (v3) SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structures initialization

From: cboulte
Date: Tue Oct 28 2008 - 05:44:51 EST

Next message: Andries E. Brouwer: "Re: [patch 0/3] [RFC] kernel/glibc mismatch of "readlink" syscall?"
Previous message: Zhao Yakui: "Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc1] ACPI Warning (nspredef-0852)[...]"
In reply to: Nadia Derbey: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] (v3) SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structuresinitialization"
Next in thread: Nadia Derbey: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] (v3) SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structuresinitialization"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 12:04 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:32 +0100, cboulte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:28 AM, <Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > This patch is a fix for Bugzilla bug
>> > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11796.
>> > >
>> > > To summarize, a simple testcase is concurrently running an infinite loop on
>> > > msgctl(IPC_STAT) and a call to msgget():
>> > >
>> > > while (1)
>> > > msgctl(id, IPC_STAT) 1
>> > > |
>> > > |
>> > > |
>> > > 2 id = msgget(key, IPC_CREAT)
>> > > |
>> > > |
>> > > |
>> > >
>> > > In the interval [1-2], the id doesn't exist yet.
>> > >
>> > > In that test, the problem is the following:
>> > > When we are calling ipc_addid() from msgget() the msq structure is not
>> > > completely initialized. So idr_get_new() is inserting a pointer into the
>> > > idr tree, and the structure which is pointed to has, among other fields,
>> > > its lock uninitialized.
>> > >
>> > > Since msgctl(IPC_STAT) is looping while (1), idr_find() returns the
>> > > pointer as soon as it is inserted into the IDR tree. And ipc_lock()
>> > > calls spin_lock(&mqs->lock), while we have not initialized that lock
>> > > yet.
>> > >
>> > > This patch moves the spin_lock_init() before the call to ipc_addid().
>> > > It also sets the "deleted" flag to 1 in the window between msg structure
>> > > allocation and msg structure locking in ipc_addid().
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Nadia
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx>
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > > ipc/util.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>> > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > Index: linux-2.6.27/ipc/util.c
>> > > ===================================================================
>> > > --- linux-2.6.27.orig/ipc/util.c 2008-10-23 15:20:46.000000000 +0200
>> > > +++ linux-2.6.27/ipc/util.c 2008-10-24 17:48:33.000000000 +0200
>> > > @@ -266,6 +266,17 @@ int ipc_addid(struct ipc_ids* ids, struc
>> > > if (ids->in_use >= size)
>> > > return -ENOSPC;
>> > >
>> > > + spin_lock_init(&new->lock);
>> > > +
>> > > + /*
>> > > + * We have a window between the time new is inserted into the idr
>> > > + * tree and the time it is actually locked.
>> > > + * In order to be safe during that window set the new ipc structure
>> > > + * as deleted: a concurrent ipc_lock() will see it as not present
>> > > + * until the initialization phase is complete.
>> > > + */
>> > > + new->deleted = 1;
>> > > +
>> > > err = idr_get_new(&ids->ipcs_idr, new, &id);
>> > > if (err)
>> > > return err;
>> > > @@ -280,10 +291,11 @@ int ipc_addid(struct ipc_ids* ids, struc
>> > > ids->seq = 0;
>> > >
>> > > new->id = ipc_buildid(id, new->seq);
>> > > - spin_lock_init(&new->lock);
>> > > - new->deleted = 0;
>> > > rcu_read_lock();
>> > > spin_lock(&new->lock);
>> > > +
>> > > + new->deleted = 0;
>> > > +
>> > > return id;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> >
>> > Still got the lock... I'm using a 4 cpus node: Intel Xeon @ 2.8GHz...
>> > don't know if it has an impact.
>> ???
>> The bad new, is that it becomes unreprodicible on my side.
>> For my part, I've got 2 2.8 GHz Xeon CPUs.
>>
>> Will review the code once more.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Nadia
>>
>> > The only way I found to have no lock, it's to spin_lock the ipc
>> > _before_ inserting it into the idr.
>> >
>> > Best regards, c.
>> >
>
> I agree with you that it's more logical and correct to take the lock
> before inserting the ipc structure (i.e. making it visible to readers).
>
> But I wanted to understand what's wrong with
> 1. new->lock init
> 2. new->deleted = 1
> 3. insert(new)
>
> I've been looking at the code again and again and the only thing I see
> could have happened, is that instructions have been reordered and the
> insertion done before the lock actually being initialized.
> This means that a memory barrier is missing (this would explain why your
> fix works: the spin_lock acts as a barrier).
> But this memory barrier is supposed to be invoked by
> rcu_assign_pointer() in idr_get_new(). So may be there's a problem with
> the idr code.
> Before going into a review of this code, I'd like to confirm what I'm
> saying, doing the following (I'm sorry to ask you do it, but I can't
> reproduce the problem in my side anymore): would you mind adding a
> smp_wmb() just before the idr_get_new in ipc_addid() and tell me if this
> solves the problem.
> (BTW, I didn't ask you before, but I guess you're getting the same call
> trace?)
>
> Regards,
> Nadia
>
> --
> Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@xxxxxxxx>
>
>

I tried this patch:
Index: bug-sysv/ipc/util.c
===================================================================
--- bug-sysv.orig/ipc/util.c 2008-10-27 09:21:44.000000000 +0100
+++ bug-sysv/ipc/util.c 2008-10-27 19:04:33.000000000 +0100
@@ -266,6 +266,19 @@ int ipc_addid(struct ipc_ids* ids, struc
if (ids->in_use >= size)
return -ENOSPC;

+ spin_lock_init(&new->lock);
+
+ /*
+ * We have a window between the time new is inserted into the idr
+ * tree and the time it is actually locked.
+ * In order to be safe during that window set the new ipc structure
+ * as deleted: a concurrent ipc_lock() will see it as not present
+ * until the initialization phase is complete.
+ */
+ new->deleted = 1;
+
+ smp_wmb();
+
err = idr_get_new(&ids->ipcs_idr, new, &id);
if (err)
return err;
@@ -280,10 +293,11 @@ int ipc_addid(struct ipc_ids* ids, struc
ids->seq = 0;

new->id = ipc_buildid(id, new->seq);
- spin_lock_init(&new->lock);
- new->deleted = 0;
rcu_read_lock();
spin_lock(&new->lock);
+
+ new->deleted = 0;
+
return id;
}

And got the lock (the node is still usuable but I guess it's because
only 1 cpu out of 4 is locked):

[ 400.393024] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
[ 400.397005] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
[ 400.397005] turning off the locking correctness validator.
[ 400.397005] Pid: 4207, comm: sysv_test2 Not tainted 2.6.27-ipc_lock #1
[ 400.397005]
[ 400.397005] Call Trace:
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80257055>] static_obj+0x60/0x77
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff8025af59>] __lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x779
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff8025b59f>] lock_acquire+0x95/0xc2
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff802feb07>] ipc_lock+0x62/0x99
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff8045117d>] _spin_lock+0x2d/0x5a
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff802feb07>] ipc_lock+0x62/0x99
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff802feb07>] ipc_lock+0x62/0x99
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff802feaa5>] ipc_lock+0x0/0x99
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff802feb46>] ipc_lock_check+0x8/0x53
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff803002c3>] sys_msgctl+0x188/0x461
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80259ac7>] trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x100/0x12a
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80450d49>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80259ac7>] trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x100/0x12a
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80212e09>] sched_clock+0x5/0x7
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80450d49>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80213021>] native_sched_clock+0x8c/0xa5
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff80212e09>] sched_clock+0x5/0x7
[ 400.397005] [<ffffffff8020bf7a>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 400.397005]
[ 464.933003] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 61s! [sysv_test2:4207]
[ 464.933006] Modules linked in: ipv6 nfs lockd nfs_acl sunrpc button
battery ac loop dm_mod md_mod usbkbd usbhid hid ff_memless mptctl
evdev tg3 libphy iTCO_wdt e752x_edac edac_core uhci_hcd rng_core
shpchp i2c_i801 pci_hotplug i2c_core ehci_hcd reiserfs edd fan thermal
processor thermal_sys mptspi mptscsih sg mptbase scsi_transport_spi
sr_mod cdrom ata_piix libata dock sd_mod scsi_mod [last unloaded:
freq_table]
[ 464.933006] irq event stamp: 2136363
[ 464.933006] hardirqs last enabled at (2136363):
[<ffffffff80450d49>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 464.933006] hardirqs last disabled at (2136361):
[<ffffffff8023ea01>] __do_softirq+0xa3/0xf7
[ 464.933006] softirqs last enabled at (2136362):
[<ffffffff8020d9bc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
[ 464.933006] softirqs last disabled at (2136357):
[<ffffffff8020d9bc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
[ 464.933006] CPU 2:
[ 464.933006] Modules linked in: ipv6 nfs lockd nfs_acl sunrpc button
battery ac loop dm_mod md_mod usbkbd usbhid hid ff_memless mptctl
evdev tg3 libphy iTCO_wdt e752x_edac edac_core uhci_hcd rng_core
shpchp i2c_i801 pci_hotplug i2c_core ehci_hcd reiserfs edd fan thermal
processor thermal_sys mptspi mptscsih sg mptbase scsi_transport_spi
sr_mod cdrom ata_piix libata dock sd_mod scsi_mod [last unloaded:
freq_table]
[ 464.933006] Pid: 4207, comm: sysv_test2 Not tainted 2.6.27-ipc_lock #1
[ 464.933006] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8033dc6b>] [<ffffffff8033dc6b>]
_raw_spin_lock+0x98/0x100
[ 464.933006] RSP: 0018:ffff880145473e48 EFLAGS: 00000206
[ 464.933006] RAX: 00000000000000cb RBX: 000000001830d3f9 RCX:
00000000ffffffff[ 464.933006] RDX: 0000018500000000 RSI:
ffffffff8053d176 RDI: 0000000000000001[ 464.933006] RBP:
0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000002 R09: 0000000000000000[
464.933006] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffffffff8033a6fe R12:
0000000000000000[ 464.933006] R13: ffffffff8033a6fe R14:
ffffffff8020c7ee R15: 0000000000000002[ 464.933006] FS:
00007f40899b86d0(0000) GS:ffff88014707f508(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 464.933006] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
[ 464.933006] CR2: 00007f408974aae0 CR3: 0000000143003000 CR4:
00000000000006e0[ 464.933006] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1:
0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000[ 464.933006] DR3:
0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400[
464.933006]
[ 464.933006] Call Trace:
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff8033dc6b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x98/0x100
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff8045119e>] _spin_lock+0x4e/0x5a
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff802feb07>] ipc_lock+0x62/0x99
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff802feb07>] ipc_lock+0x62/0x99
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff802feaa5>] ipc_lock+0x0/0x99
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff802feb46>] ipc_lock_check+0x8/0x53
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff803002c3>] sys_msgctl+0x188/0x461
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80259ac7>] trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x100/0x12a
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80450d49>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80259ac7>] trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x100/0x12a
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80212e09>] sched_clock+0x5/0x7
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80450d49>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80213021>] native_sched_clock+0x8c/0xa5
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff80212e09>] sched_clock+0x5/0x7
[ 464.933006] [<ffffffff8020bf7a>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 464.933006]

I checked it with two different distributions: Debian Lenny and Sles 10 SP 1.

Regards, c.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andries E. Brouwer: "Re: [patch 0/3] [RFC] kernel/glibc mismatch of "readlink" syscall?"
Previous message: Zhao Yakui: "Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc1] ACPI Warning (nspredef-0852)[...]"
In reply to: Nadia Derbey: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] (v3) SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structuresinitialization"
Next in thread: Nadia Derbey: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] (v3) SYSVIPC - Fix the ipc structuresinitialization"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]