lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5.4 1/2] epoll: call final ep_events_available() check under the lock
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:11:22AM +0000, Rishabh Bhatnagar wrote:
> From: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
>
> Commit 65759097d804d2a9ad2b687db436319704ba7019 upstream.
>
> There is a possible race when ep_scan_ready_list() leaves ->rdllist and
> ->obflist empty for a short period of time although some events are
> pending. It is quite likely that ep_events_available() observes empty
> lists and goes to sleep.
>
> Since commit 339ddb53d373 ("fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of
> nested epoll") we are conservative in wakeups (there is only one place
> for wakeup and this is ep_poll_callback()), thus ep_events_available()
> must always observe correct state of two lists.
>
> The easiest and correct way is to do the final check under the lock.
> This does not impact the performance, since lock is taken anyway for
> adding a wait entry to the wait queue.
>
> The discussion of the problem can be found here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/a2f22c3c-c25a-4bda-8339-a7bdaf17849e@akamai.com/
>
> In this patch barrierless __set_current_state() is used. This is safe
> since waitqueue_active() is called under the same lock on wakeup side.
>
> Short-circuit for fatal signals (i.e. fatal_signal_pending() check) is
> moved to the line just before actual events harvesting routine. This is
> fully compliant to what is said in the comment of the patch where the
> actual fatal_signal_pending() check was added: c257a340ede0 ("fs, epoll:
> short circuit fetching events if thread has been killed").
>
> Fixes: 339ddb53d373 ("fs/epoll: remove unnecessary wakeups of nested epoll")
> Reported-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
> Cc: Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@google.com>
> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200505145609.1865152-1-rpenyaev@suse.de
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <risbhat@amazon.com>

Acked-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>

I ended up picking these two fixes to our kernels as well, even though we could
not pinpoint the process kernel stacktrace as you did as a way to determine the
failure has happened. We are still testing that this is really fixed with these
two commits.

On the other hand,
tools/testing/selftests/filesystems/epoll/epoll_wakeup_test.c epoll61 test
starts passing once these two commits are applied.

Cascardo.


> ---
> fs/eventpoll.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> index 7e11135bc915..e5496483a882 100644
> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -1905,33 +1905,31 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> init_wait(&wait);
> wait.func = ep_autoremove_wake_function;
> write_lock_irq(&ep->lock);
> - __add_wait_queue_exclusive(&ep->wq, &wait);
> - write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
> -
> /*
> - * We don't want to sleep if the ep_poll_callback() sends us
> - * a wakeup in between. That's why we set the task state
> - * to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before doing the checks.
> + * Barrierless variant, waitqueue_active() is called under
> + * the same lock on wakeup ep_poll_callback() side, so it
> + * is safe to avoid an explicit barrier.
> */
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> + __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +
> /*
> - * Always short-circuit for fatal signals to allow
> - * threads to make a timely exit without the chance of
> - * finding more events available and fetching
> - * repeatedly.
> + * Do the final check under the lock. ep_scan_ready_list()
> + * plays with two lists (->rdllist and ->ovflist) and there
> + * is always a race when both lists are empty for short
> + * period of time although events are pending, so lock is
> + * important.
> */
> - if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> - res = -EINTR;
> - break;
> + eavail = ep_events_available(ep);
> + if (!eavail) {
> + if (signal_pending(current))
> + res = -EINTR;
> + else
> + __add_wait_queue_exclusive(&ep->wq, &wait);
> }
> + write_unlock_irq(&ep->lock);
>
> - eavail = ep_events_available(ep);
> - if (eavail)
> - break;
> - if (signal_pending(current)) {
> - res = -EINTR;
> + if (eavail || res)
> break;
> - }
>
> if (!schedule_hrtimeout_range(to, slack, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS)) {
> timed_out = 1;
> @@ -1952,6 +1950,15 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> }
>
> send_events:
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
> + /*
> + * Always short-circuit for fatal signals to allow
> + * threads to make a timely exit without the chance of
> + * finding more events available and fetching
> + * repeatedly.
> + */
> + res = -EINTR;
> + }
> /*
> * Try to transfer events to user space. In case we get 0 events and
> * there's still timeout left over, we go trying again in search of
> --
> 2.37.1
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-24 08:49    [W:0.071 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site