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 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.