mirror of
https://gitee.com/bianbu-linux/linux-6.6
synced 2025-04-24 14:07:52 -04:00
jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in static_key_slow_dec()
[ Upstream commit 83ab38ef0a0b2407d43af9575bb32333fdd74fb2 ]
The commit which tried to fix the concurrency issues of concurrent
static_key_slow_inc() failed to fix the equivalent issues
vs. static_key_slow_dec():
CPU0 CPU1
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 1
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
if (val == 1)
return false;
jump_label_lock();
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled)) {
--> key->enabled == 0
__jump_label_update()
static_key_slow_dec()
static_key_slow_try_dec()
key->enabled == 0
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
--> key->enabled == -1 <- FAIL
There is another bug in that code, when there is a concurrent
static_key_slow_inc() which enables the key as that sets key->enabled to -1
so on the other CPU
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
will succeed and decrement to -2, which is invalid.
Cure all of this by replacing the atomic_fetch_add_unless() with a
atomic_try_cmpxchg() loop similar to static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled().
[peterz: add WARN_ON_ONCE for the -1 race]
Fixes: 4c5ea0a9cd
("locking/static_key: Fix concurrent static_key_slow_inc()")
Reported-by: Yue Sun <samsun1006219@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Xingwei Lee <xrivendell7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240610124406.422897838@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a1359e085d
commit
fc5cdbe1be
1 changed files with 29 additions and 16 deletions
|
@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ bool static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(struct static_key *key)
|
||||||
STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
|
STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Negative key->enabled has a special meaning: it sends
|
* Negative key->enabled has a special meaning: it sends
|
||||||
* static_key_slow_inc() down the slow path, and it is non-zero
|
* static_key_slow_inc/dec() down the slow path, and it is non-zero
|
||||||
* so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update(). Note that
|
* so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update(). Note that
|
||||||
* atomic_inc_unless_negative() checks >= 0, so roll our own.
|
* atomic_inc_unless_negative() checks >= 0, so roll our own.
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
|
@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ bool static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
|
||||||
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
|
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc() calls;
|
* Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc/dec() calls;
|
||||||
* later calls must wait for the first one to _finish_ the
|
* later calls must wait for the first one to _finish_ the
|
||||||
* jump_label_update() process. At the same time, however,
|
* jump_label_update() process. At the same time, however,
|
||||||
* the jump_label_update() call below wants to see
|
* the jump_label_update() call below wants to see
|
||||||
|
@ -247,20 +247,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_disable);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
|
static bool static_key_slow_try_dec(struct static_key *key)
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
int val;
|
int v;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
|
|
||||||
if (val == 1)
|
|
||||||
return false;
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* The negative count check is valid even when a negative
|
* Go into the slow path if key::enabled is less than or equal than
|
||||||
* key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a
|
* one. One is valid to shut down the key, anything less than one
|
||||||
* __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc()
|
* is an imbalance, which is handled at the call site.
|
||||||
* returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
|
*
|
||||||
* instances block while the update is in progress.
|
* That includes the special case of '-1' which is set in
|
||||||
|
* static_key_slow_inc_cpuslocked(), but that's harmless as it is
|
||||||
|
* fully serialized in the slow path below. By the time this task
|
||||||
|
* acquires the jump label lock the value is back to one and the
|
||||||
|
* retry under the lock must succeed.
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
WARN(val < 0, "jump label: negative count!\n");
|
v = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
|
||||||
|
do {
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* Warn about the '-1' case though; since that means a
|
||||||
|
* decrement is concurrent with a first (0->1) increment. IOW
|
||||||
|
* people are trying to disable something that wasn't yet fully
|
||||||
|
* enabled. This suggests an ordering problem on the user side.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(v < 0);
|
||||||
|
if (v <= 1)
|
||||||
|
return false;
|
||||||
|
} while (!likely(atomic_try_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, &v, v - 1)));
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
return true;
|
return true;
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -271,10 +283,11 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
|
||||||
if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
|
if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
|
||||||
return;
|
return;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
jump_label_lock();
|
guard(mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
|
||||||
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled))
|
if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0))
|
||||||
jump_label_update(key);
|
jump_label_update(key);
|
||||||
jump_label_unlock();
|
else
|
||||||
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(!static_key_slow_try_dec(key));
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key)
|
static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key)
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue