jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in static_key_slow_dec()

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-68940

commit 83ab38e
Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:46:36 +0200

    jump_label: Fix concurrency issues in static_key_slow_dec()

    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: 4c5ea0a ("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: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Author: Waiman-Long

kernel/jump_label.c

@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ bool static_key_fast_inc_not_disabled(struct static_key *key)
 	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
 	/*
 	 * 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
 	 * 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();
 
 	/*
-	 * 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
 	 * jump_label_update() process.  At the same time, however,
 	 * 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)
 {
-	int val;
-
-	val = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&key->enabled, -1, 1);
-	if (val == 1)
-		return false;
+	int v;
 
 	/*
-	 * The negative count check is valid even when a negative
-	 * key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a
-	 * __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc()
-	 * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
-	 * instances block while the update is in progress.
+	 * Go into the slow path if key::enabled is less than or equal than
+	 * one. One is valid to shut down the key, anything less than one
+	 * is an imbalance, which is handled at the call site.
+	 *
+	 * 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;
 }
 
@@ -271,10 +283,11 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
 	if (static_key_slow_try_dec(key))
 		return;
 
-	jump_label_lock();
-	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&key->enabled))
+	guard(mutex)(&jump_label_mutex);
+	if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0))
 		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)