On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:05:28PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:11:18AM +0200, Varad Gautam wrote:
Right, I misread the call chain - security_xfrm_policy_lookup does not reach xfrm_policy_lookup, making this patch unnecessary. The bug I have is:
T1, holding hash_resize_mutex and sleeping inside synchronize_rcu:
__schedule schedule schedule_timeout wait_for_completion __wait_rcu_gp synchronize_rcu xfrm_hash_resize
And T2 producing RCU-stalls since it blocked on the mutex:
__schedule schedule __rt_mutex_slowlock rt_mutex_slowlock_locked rt_mutex_slowlock xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype.constprop.77
Ugh, why does xfrm_policy_lookup_bytype use a mutex? This is called in the receive path inside a sofirq.
The bug was introduced by:
commit 77cc278f7b202e4f16f8596837219d02cb090b96 Author: Ahmed S. Darwish a.darwish@linutronix.de Date: Mon Jul 20 17:55:22 2020 +0200
xfrm: policy: Use sequence counters with associated lock A sequence counter write side critical section must be protected by some form of locking to serialize writers. If the serialization primitive is not disabling preemption implicitly, preemption has to be explicitly disabled before entering the sequence counter write side critical section. A plain seqcount_t does not contain the information of which lock must be held when entering a write side critical section. Use the new seqcount_spinlock_t and seqcount_mutex_t data types instead, which allow to associate a lock with the sequence counter. This enables lockdep to verify that the lock used for writer serialization is held when the write side critical section is entered. If lockdep is disabled this lock association is compiled out and has neither storage size nor runtime overhead. Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200720155530.1173732-17-a.darwish@linutronix.deThis uses a seqcount_mutex_t for xfrm_policy_hash_generation, that's wrong.
Varad, can you try to replace the seqcount_mutex_t for xfrm_policy_hash_generation by a seqcount_spinlock_t? I'm not familiar with that seqcount changes, but we should not end up with using a mutex in this codepath.