kernel/kthread.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when
the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored
because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state.
However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call
to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in
TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked.
As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread
triggers such a warning:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525
<TASK>
kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707
destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810
wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257
netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693
default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769
ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline]
cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640
process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline]
process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312
worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393
kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389
ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244
</TASK>
Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread.
Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+943d34fa3cf2191e3068@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
kernel/kthread.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
index f7be976ff88a..5e2ba556aba8 100644
--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -623,6 +623,8 @@ void kthread_unpark(struct task_struct *k)
{
struct kthread *kthread = to_kthread(k);
+ if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &kthread->flags))
+ return;
/*
* Newly created kthread was parked when the CPU was offline.
* The binding was lost and we need to set it again.
--
2.46.0
On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:46:34 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote: > Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when > the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored > because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state. > > However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call > to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in > TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked. > > As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread > triggers such a warning: > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525 > <TASK> > kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707 > destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810 > wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257 > netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693 > default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769 > ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline] > cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640 > process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline] > process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312 > worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393 > kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389 > ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 > </TASK> > > Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread. How does userspace trigger this? Is it an issue in current mainline? Should we backport the fix into -stable kernels (depends on the answers to the above questions). It looks like the issue is old, so a Fixes: probably isn't needed. But as the issue is old, why did it come to light now?
Le Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton a écrit :
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:46:34 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when
> > the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored
> > because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state.
> >
> > However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call
> > to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in
> > TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked.
> >
> > As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread
> > triggers such a warning:
> >
> > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525
> > <TASK>
> > kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707
> > destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810
> > wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257
> > netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693
> > default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769
> > ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline]
> > cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640
> > process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline]
> > process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312
> > worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393
> > kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389
> > ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147
> > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244
> > </TASK>
> >
> > Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread.
>
> How does userspace trigger this? Is it an issue in current mainline?
I guess it takes some module unload performing a destroy workqueue to
trigger this. And it's an issue in current mainline.
>
> Should we backport the fix into -stable kernels (depends on the answers
> to the above questions).
>
> It looks like the issue is old, so a Fixes: probably isn't needed. But
> as the issue is old, why did it come to light now?
It's hard to tell. The core of the issue is there for a long while but
the conditions for it to really happen in practice is probably since:
5c25b5ff89f0 (workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU)
So it might deserve a Fixes: actually.
Thanks.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 16:15:05 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
> Le Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 01:21:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton a écrit :
> > On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:46:34 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when
> > > the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored
> > > because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state.
> > >
> > > However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call
> > > to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in
> > > TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked.
> > >
> > > As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread
> > > triggers such a warning:
> > >
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525
> > > <TASK>
> > > kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707
> > > destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810
> > > wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257
> > > netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693
> > > default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769
> > > ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline]
> > > cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640
> > > process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline]
> > > process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312
> > > worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393
> > > kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389
> > > ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147
> > > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244
> > > </TASK>
> > >
> > > Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread.
> >
> > How does userspace trigger this? Is it an issue in current mainline?
>
> I guess it takes some module unload performing a destroy workqueue to
> trigger this. And it's an issue in current mainline.
Cool.
> >
> > Should we backport the fix into -stable kernels (depends on the answers
> > to the above questions).
> >
> > It looks like the issue is old, so a Fixes: probably isn't needed. But
> > as the issue is old, why did it come to light now?
>
> It's hard to tell. The core of the issue is there for a long while but
> the conditions for it to really happen in practice is probably since:
>
> 5c25b5ff89f0 (workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU)
>
> So it might deserve a Fixes: actually.
OK, thsnks I added
Fixes: 5c25b5ff89f0 ("workqueue: Tag bound workers with KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
and it's queued for a 6.12-rcX merge.
Gentle Ping?
Le Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 11:46:34PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker a écrit :
> Calling into kthread unparking unconditionally is mostly harmless when
> the kthread is already unparked. The wake up is then simply ignored
> because the target is not in TASK_PARKED state.
>
> However if the kthread is per CPU, the wake up is preceded by a call
> to kthread_bind() which expects the task to be inactive and in
> TASK_PARKED state, which obviously isn't the case if it is unparked.
>
> As a result, calling kthread_stop() on an unparked per-cpu kthread
> triggers such a warning:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 11 at kernel/kthread.c:525 __kthread_bind_mask kernel/kthread.c:525
> <TASK>
> kthread_stop+0x17a/0x630 kernel/kthread.c:707
> destroy_workqueue+0x136/0xc40 kernel/workqueue.c:5810
> wg_destruct+0x1e2/0x2e0 drivers/net/wireguard/device.c:257
> netdev_run_todo+0xe1a/0x1000 net/core/dev.c:10693
> default_device_exit_batch+0xa14/0xa90 net/core/dev.c:11769
> ops_exit_list net/core/net_namespace.c:178 [inline]
> cleanup_net+0x89d/0xcc0 net/core/net_namespace.c:640
> process_one_work kernel/workqueue.c:3231 [inline]
> process_scheduled_works+0xa2c/0x1830 kernel/workqueue.c:3312
> worker_thread+0x86d/0xd70 kernel/workqueue.c:3393
> kthread+0x2f0/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:389
> ret_from_fork+0x4b/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147
> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244
> </TASK>
>
> Fix this with skipping unecessary unparking while stopping a kthread.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+943d34fa3cf2191e3068@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> ---
> kernel/kthread.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> index f7be976ff88a..5e2ba556aba8 100644
> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -623,6 +623,8 @@ void kthread_unpark(struct task_struct *k)
> {
> struct kthread *kthread = to_kthread(k);
>
> + if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &kthread->flags))
> + return;
> /*
> * Newly created kthread was parked when the CPU was offline.
> * The binding was lost and we need to set it again.
> --
> 2.46.0
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.