From: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@nvidia.com>
To: <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Ophir Munk" <ophirmu@nvidia.com>,
stable@dpdk.org, "Anatoly Burakov" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3] eal: fix memory initialization deadlock
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 12:52:26 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230906095227.1032271-1-artemyko@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230830103303.2428995-1-artemyko@nvidia.com>
The issue arose due to the change in the DPDK read-write lock
implementation. That change added a new flag, RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT, designed
to prevent new read locks while a write lock is in the queue. However,
this change has led to a scenario where a recursive read lock, where a
lock is acquired twice by the same execution thread, can initiate a
sequence of events resulting in a deadlock:
Process 1 takes the first read lock.
Process 2 attempts to take a write lock, triggering RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT due
to the presence of a read lock. This makes process 2 enter a wait loop
until the read lock is released.
Process 1 tries to take a second read lock. However, since a write lock
is waiting (due to RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT), it also enters a wait loop until
the write lock is acquired and then released.
Both processes end up in a blocked state, unable to proceed, resulting
in a deadlock scenario.
Following these changes, the RW-lock no longer supports
recursion, implying that a single thread shouldn't obtain a read lock if
it already possesses one. The problem arises during initialization: the
rte_eal_init() function acquires the memory_hotplug_lock, and later on,
the sequence of calls rte_eal_memory_init() -> eal_memalloc_init() ->
rte_memseg_list_walk() acquires it again without releasing it. This
scenario introduces the risk of a potential deadlock when concurrent
write locks are applied to the same memory_hotplug_lock. To address this
we resolved the issue by replacing rte_memseg_list_walk() with
rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe().
Implementing a lock annotation for rte_memseg_list_walk() to
proactively identify bugs similar to this one during compile time.
Bugzilla ID: 1277
Fixes: 832cecc03d77 ("rwlock: prevent readers from starving writers")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@nvidia.com>
---
v2:
changed walk to thread-unsafe version in eal_dynmem_hugepage_init() 32-bit flow
v3:
added lock annotation for the flow
---
lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c | 5 ++++-
lib/eal/common/eal_memalloc.h | 3 ++-
lib/eal/common/eal_private.h | 3 ++-
lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h | 4 ++++
lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h | 5 +++++
lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h | 4 +++-
lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c | 7 +++++--
7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
index bdbbe233a0..95da55d9b0 100644
--- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
+++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_dynmem.c
@@ -251,7 +251,10 @@ eal_dynmem_hugepage_init(void)
*/
memset(&dummy, 0, sizeof(dummy));
dummy.hugepage_sz = hpi->hugepage_sz;
- if (rte_memseg_list_walk(hugepage_count_walk, &dummy) < 0)
+ /* memory_hotplug_lock is held during initialization, so it's
+ * safe to call thread-unsafe version.
+ */
+ if (rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe(hugepage_count_walk, &dummy) < 0)
return -1;
for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(dummy.num_pages); i++) {
diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_memalloc.h b/lib/eal/common/eal_memalloc.h
index ebc3a6f6c1..286ffb7633 100644
--- a/lib/eal/common/eal_memalloc.h
+++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_memalloc.h
@@ -91,7 +91,8 @@ int
eal_memalloc_get_seg_fd_offset(int list_idx, int seg_idx, size_t *offset);
int
-eal_memalloc_init(void);
+eal_memalloc_init(void)
+ __rte_shared_locks_required(rte_mcfg_mem_get_lock());
int
eal_memalloc_cleanup(void);
diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_private.h b/lib/eal/common/eal_private.h
index 5eadba4902..ebd496b537 100644
--- a/lib/eal/common/eal_private.h
+++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_private.h
@@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ int rte_eal_memseg_init(void);
* @return
* 0 on success, negative on error
*/
-int rte_eal_memory_init(void);
+int rte_eal_memory_init(void)
+ __rte_shared_locks_required(rte_mcfg_mem_get_lock());
/**
* Configure timers
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
index 9e083bbc61..c98fc7d083 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
@@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ rte_rwlock_init(rte_rwlock_t *rwl)
/**
* Take a read lock. Loop until the lock is held.
*
+ * @note The RW lock isn't recursive, so calling this function on the same
+ * lock twice without releasing it could potentially result in a deadlock
+ * scenario when a write lock is involved.
+ *
* @param rwl
* A pointer to a rwlock structure.
*/
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h
index 9fc50082d6..2456a69352 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_lock_annotations.h
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ extern "C" {
#define __rte_unlock_function(...) \
__attribute__((unlock_function(__VA_ARGS__)))
+#define __rte_locks_excluded(...) \
+ __attribute__((locks_excluded(__VA_ARGS__)))
+
#define __rte_no_thread_safety_analysis \
__attribute__((no_thread_safety_analysis))
@@ -62,6 +65,8 @@ extern "C" {
#define __rte_unlock_function(...)
+#define __rte_locks_excluded(...)
+
#define __rte_no_thread_safety_analysis
#endif /* RTE_ANNOTATE_LOCKS */
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h b/lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h
index 3a1c607228..842362d527 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/rte_memory.h
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ extern "C" {
#include <rte_bitops.h>
#include <rte_common.h>
#include <rte_config.h>
+#include <rte_eal_memconfig.h>
#include <rte_fbarray.h>
#define RTE_PGSIZE_4K (1ULL << 12)
@@ -250,7 +251,8 @@ rte_memseg_contig_walk(rte_memseg_contig_walk_t func, void *arg);
* -1 if user function reported error
*/
int
-rte_memseg_list_walk(rte_memseg_list_walk_t func, void *arg);
+rte_memseg_list_walk(rte_memseg_list_walk_t func, void *arg)
+ __rte_locks_excluded(rte_mcfg_mem_get_lock());
/**
* Walk list of all memsegs without performing any locking.
diff --git a/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c b/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
index f8b1588cae..9853ec78a2 100644
--- a/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
+++ b/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
@@ -1740,7 +1740,10 @@ eal_memalloc_init(void)
eal_get_internal_configuration();
if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
- if (rte_memseg_list_walk(secondary_msl_create_walk, NULL) < 0)
+ /* memory_hotplug_lock is held during initialization, so it's
+ * safe to call thread-unsafe version.
+ */
+ if (rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe(secondary_msl_create_walk, NULL) < 0)
return -1;
if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY &&
internal_conf->in_memory) {
@@ -1778,7 +1781,7 @@ eal_memalloc_init(void)
}
/* initialize all of the fd lists */
- if (rte_memseg_list_walk(fd_list_create_walk, NULL))
+ if (rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe(fd_list_create_walk, NULL))
return -1;
return 0;
}
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-06 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-30 10:33 [PATCH] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-08-30 19:13 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2023-09-04 8:24 ` [PATCH v2] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-05 7:05 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2023-09-05 9:05 ` Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-05 10:15 ` David Marchand
2023-09-06 9:52 ` Artemy Kovalyov [this message]
2023-09-06 12:52 ` [PATCH v3] " David Marchand
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] eal: annotate rte_memseg_list_walk() Artemy Kovalyov
2023-10-06 10:12 ` David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230906095227.1032271-1-artemyko@nvidia.com \
--to=artemyko@nvidia.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ophirmu@nvidia.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).