Hey Nysal,
This is really good debugging, and a nice write up.
On Mon Aug 26, 2024 at 6:12 PM AEST, Nysal Jan K.A. wrote:
If an interrupt occurs in queued_spin_lock_slowpath() after we increment qnodesp->count and before node->lock is initialized, another CPU might see stale lock values in get_tail_qnode(). If the stale lock value happens to match the lock on that CPU, then we write to the "next" pointer of the wrong qnode. This causes a deadlock as the former CPU, once it becomes the head of the MCS queue, will spin indefinitely until it's "next" pointer is set by its successor in the queue. This results in lockups similar to the following.
watchdog: CPU 15 Hard LOCKUP ...... NIP [c0000000000b78f4] queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x1184/0x1490 LR [c000000001037c5c] _raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0x90 Call Trace: 0xc000002cfffa3bf0 (unreliable) _raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0x90 raw_spin_rq_lock_nested.part.135+0x4c/0xd0 sched_ttwu_pending+0x60/0x1f0 __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x1dc/0x670 smp_ipi_demux_relaxed+0xa4/0x100 xive_muxed_ipi_action+0x20/0x40 __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x80/0x240 handle_irq_event_percpu+0x2c/0x80 handle_percpu_irq+0x84/0xd0 generic_handle_irq+0x54/0x80 __do_irq+0xac/0x210 __do_IRQ+0x74/0xd0 0x0 do_IRQ+0x8c/0x170 hardware_interrupt_common_virt+0x29c/0x2a0 --- interrupt: 500 at queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x4b8/0x1490 ...... NIP [c0000000000b6c28] queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x4b8/0x1490 LR [c000000001037c5c] _raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0x90 --- interrupt: 500 0xc0000029c1a41d00 (unreliable) _raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0x90 futex_wake+0x100/0x260 do_futex+0x21c/0x2a0 sys_futex+0x98/0x270 system_call_exception+0x14c/0x2f0 system_call_vectored_common+0x15c/0x2ec
The following code flow illustrates how the deadlock occurs:
CPU0 CPU1 ---- ----spin_lock_irqsave(A) | spin_unlock_irqrestore(A) | spin_lock(B) | | | ▼ | id = qnodesp->count++; | (Note that nodes[0].lock == A) | | | ▼ | Interrupt | (happens before "nodes[0].lock = B") | | | ▼ | spin_lock_irqsave(A) | | | ▼ | id = qnodesp->count++ | nodes[1].lock = A | | | ▼ | Tail of MCS queue | | spin_lock_irqsave(A) ▼ | Head of MCS queue ▼ | CPU0 is previous tail ▼ | Spin indefinitely ▼ (until "nodes[1].next != NULL") prev = get_tail_qnode(A, CPU0) | ▼ prev == &qnodes[CPU0].nodes[0] (as qnodes[CPU0].nodes[0].lock == A) | ▼ WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, node) | ▼ Spin indefinitely (until nodes[0].locked == 1)
I can follow your scenario, and agree it is a bug.
Generic qspinlock code does not have a similar path because it encodes idx with the CPU in the spinlock word. The powerpc qspinlocks removed that to save some bits in the word (to support more CPUs).
What probably makes it really difficult to hit is that I think both locks A and B need contention from other sources to push them into queueing slow path. I guess that's omitted for brevity in the flow above, which is fine.
Thanks to Saket Kumar Bhaskar for help with recreating the issue
Fixes: 84990b169557 ("powerpc/qspinlock: add mcs queueing for contended waiters") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.2+ Reported-by: Geetika Moolchandani geetika@linux.ibm.com Reported-by: Vaishnavi Bhat vaish123@in.ibm.com Reported-by: Jijo Varghese vargjijo@in.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Nysal Jan K.A. nysal@linux.ibm.com
arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c index 5de4dd549f6e..59861c665cef 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/qspinlock.c @@ -697,6 +697,12 @@ static __always_inline void queued_spin_lock_mcs_queue(struct qspinlock *lock, b } release:
- /*
* Clear the lock, as another CPU might see stale values if an* interrupt occurs after we increment qnodesp->count but before* node->lock is initialized*/- node->lock = NULL; qnodesp->count--; /* release the node */
AFAIKS this fix works.
There is one complication which is those two stores could be swapped by the compiler. So we could take an IRQ here that sees the node has been freed, but node->lock has not yet been cleared. Basically equivalent to the problem solved by the barrier() on the count++ side.
This reordering would not cause a problem in your scenario AFAIKS because when the lock call returns, node->lock *will* be cleared so it can not cause a problem later.
Still, should we put a barrier() between these just to make things a bit cleaner? I.e., when count is decremented, we definitely won't do any other stores to node. Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin npiggin@gmail.com
Thanks, Nick