Skip to content

Commit 614ea4e

Browse files
Kosuke Tatsukawagregkh
Kosuke Tatsukawa
authored andcommitted
tty: fix stall caused by missing memory barrier in drivers/tty/n_tty.c
commit e81107d upstream. My colleague ran into a program stall on a x86_64 server, where n_tty_read() was waiting for data even if there was data in the buffer in the pty. kernel stack for the stuck process looks like below. #0 [ffff88303d107b58] __schedule at ffffffff815c4b20 #1 [ffff88303d107bd0] schedule at ffffffff815c513e #2 [ffff88303d107bf0] schedule_timeout at ffffffff815c7818 #3 [ffff88303d107ca0] wait_woken at ffffffff81096bd2 #4 [ffff88303d107ce0] n_tty_read at ffffffff8136fa23 #5 [ffff88303d107dd0] tty_read at ffffffff81368013 #6 [ffff88303d107e20] __vfs_read at ffffffff811a3704 #7 [ffff88303d107ec0] vfs_read at ffffffff811a3a57 #8 [ffff88303d107f00] sys_read at ffffffff811a4306 #9 [ffff88303d107f50] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath at ffffffff815c86d7 There seems to be two problems causing this issue. First, in drivers/tty/n_tty.c, __receive_buf() stores the data and updates ldata->commit_head using smp_store_release() and then checks the wait queue using waitqueue_active(). However, since there is no memory barrier, __receive_buf() could return without calling wake_up_interactive_poll(), and at the same time, n_tty_read() could start to wait in wait_woken() as in the following chart. __receive_buf() n_tty_read() ------------------------------------------------------------------------ if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait)) /* Memory operations issued after the RELEASE may be completed before the RELEASE operation has completed */ add_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait); ... if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) { smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head, ldata->read_head); ... timeout = wait_woken(&wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The second problem is that n_tty_read() also lacks a memory barrier call and could also cause __receive_buf() to return without calling wake_up_interactive_poll(), and n_tty_read() to wait in wait_woken() as in the chart below. __receive_buf() n_tty_read() ------------------------------------------------------------------------ spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags); /* from add_wait_queue() */ ... if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) { /* Memory operations issued after the RELEASE may be completed before the RELEASE operation has completed */ smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head, ldata->read_head); if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait)) __add_wait_queue(q, wait); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock,flags); /* from add_wait_queue() */ ... timeout = wait_woken(&wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are also other places in drivers/tty/n_tty.c which have similar calls to waitqueue_active(), so instead of adding many memory barrier calls, this patch simply removes the call to waitqueue_active(), leaving just wake_up*() behind. This fixes both problems because, even though the memory access before or after the spinlocks in both wake_up*() and add_wait_queue() can sneak into the critical section, it cannot go past it and the critical section assures that they will be serialized (please see "INTER-CPU ACQUIRING BARRIER EFFECTS" in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for a better explanation). Moreover, the resulting code is much simpler. Latency measurement using a ping-pong test over a pty doesn't show any visible performance drop. Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
1 parent a0533fb commit 614ea4e

File tree

1 file changed

+5
-10
lines changed

1 file changed

+5
-10
lines changed

drivers/tty/n_tty.c

Lines changed: 5 additions & 10 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -343,8 +343,7 @@ static void n_tty_packet_mode_flush(struct tty_struct *tty)
343343
spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
344344
tty->ctrl_status |= TIOCPKT_FLUSHREAD;
345345
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
346-
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->link->read_wait))
347-
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->link->read_wait);
346+
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->link->read_wait);
348347
}
349348
}
350349

@@ -1383,8 +1382,7 @@ n_tty_receive_char_special(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned char c)
13831382
put_tty_queue(c, ldata);
13841383
smp_store_release(&ldata->canon_head, ldata->read_head);
13851384
kill_fasync(&tty->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
1386-
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
1387-
wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
1385+
wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
13881386
return 0;
13891387
}
13901388
}
@@ -1670,8 +1668,7 @@ static void __receive_buf(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *cp,
16701668

16711669
if ((read_cnt(ldata) >= ldata->minimum_to_wake) || L_EXTPROC(tty)) {
16721670
kill_fasync(&tty->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
1673-
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
1674-
wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
1671+
wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
16751672
}
16761673
}
16771674

@@ -1890,10 +1887,8 @@ static void n_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty, struct ktermios *old)
18901887
}
18911888

18921889
/* The termios change make the tty ready for I/O */
1893-
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->write_wait))
1894-
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait);
1895-
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
1896-
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->read_wait);
1890+
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait);
1891+
wake_up_interruptible(&tty->read_wait);
18971892
}
18981893

18991894
/**

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)