From: Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: minchan@google.com, www@google.com, davidchao@google.com,
jenhaochen@google.com, Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com
Subject: [PATCH] kthread: Fix kthread_mod_delayed_work vs kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync race
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 14:54:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210513065458.941403-1-liumartin@google.com> (raw)
We encountered a system hang issue while doing the tests. The callstack
is as following
schedule+0x80/0x100
schedule_timeout+0x48/0x138
wait_for_common+0xa4/0x134
wait_for_completion+0x1c/0x2c
kthread_flush_work+0x114/0x1cc
kthread_cancel_work_sync.llvm.16514401384283632983+0xe8/0x144
kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x18/0x2c
xxxx_pm_notify+0xb0/0xd8
blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x80/0x194
pm_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x28/0x4c
suspend_prepare+0x40/0x260
enter_state+0x80/0x3f4
pm_suspend+0x60/0xdc
state_store+0x108/0x144
kobj_attr_store+0x38/0x88
sysfs_kf_write+0x64/0xc0
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x108/0x1d0
vfs_write+0x2f4/0x368
ksys_write+0x7c/0xec
When we started investigating, we found race between
kthread_mod_delayed_work vs kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync. The race's
result could be simply reproduced as a kthread_mod_delayed_work with
a following kthread_flush_work call.
Thing is we release kthread_mod_delayed_work kspin_lock in
__kthread_cancel_work so it opens a race window for
kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync to change the canceling count used to
prevent dwork from being requeued before calling kthread_flush_work.
However, we don't check the canceling count after returning from
__kthread_cancel_work and then insert the dwork to the worker. It
results the following kthread_flush_work inserts flush work to dwork's
tail which is at worker's dealyed_work_list. Therefore, flush work will
never get moved to the worker's work_list to be executed. Finally,
kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync will NOT be able to get completed and
wait forever. The code sequence diagram is as following
Thread A Thread B
kthread_mod_delayed_work
spin_lock
__kthread_cancel_work
canceling = 1
spin_unlock
kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync
spin_lock
kthread_cancel_work
canceling = 2
spin_unlock
del_timer_sync
spin_lock
canceling = 1 // canceling count gets update in ThreadB before
queue_delayed_work // dwork is put into the woker’s dealyed_work_list
without checking the canceling count
spin_unlock
kthread_flush_work
spin_lock
Insert flush work // at the tail of the
dwork which is at
the worker’s
dealyed_work_list
spin_unlock
wait_for_completion // Thread B stuck here as
flush work will never
get executed
The canceling count could change in __kthread_cancel_work as the spinlock
get released and regained in between, let's check the count again before
we queue the delayed work to avoid the race.
Fixes: 37be45d49dec2 ("kthread: allow to cancel kthread work")
Tested-by: David Chao <davidchao@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>
---
kernel/kthread.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
index fe3f2a40d61e..064eae335c1f 100644
--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -1181,6 +1181,19 @@ bool kthread_mod_delayed_work(struct kthread_worker *worker,
goto out;
ret = __kthread_cancel_work(work, true, &flags);
+
+ /*
+ * Canceling could run in parallel from kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync
+ * and change work's canceling count as the spinlock is released and regain
+ * in __kthread_cancel_work so we need to check the count again. Otherwise,
+ * we might incorrectly queue the dwork and further cause
+ * cancel_delayed_work_sync thread waiting for flush dwork endlessly.
+ */
+ if (work->canceling) {
+ ret = false;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
fast_queue:
__kthread_queue_delayed_work(worker, dwork, delay);
out:
--
2.31.1.607.g51e8a6a459-goog
next reply other threads:[~2021-05-13 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 6:54 Martin Liu [this message]
2021-05-19 16:11 ` Martin Liu
2021-05-20 11:26 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-20 11:44 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-20 21:48 ` Andrew Morton
2021-05-21 7:12 ` Petr Mladek
2021-05-21 8:50 ` Martin Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210513065458.941403-1-liumartin@google.com \
--to=liumartin@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=davidchao@google.com \
--cc=jenhaochen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minchan@google.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=www@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®