linux-kernel - Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:14:45 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	linux hotplug mailing <linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:12:34PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
> Hi Rafael and Tejun,
> 	When running CPU hotplug tests, it triggers an lockdep warning
> as follow. The two possible deadlock paths are:
> 1) echo x > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online
>    ->kernfs_fop_write()
>      ->kernfs_get_active()
> 1.a)   ->rwsem_acquire_read(&kn->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>          ->cpu_up()
> 1.b)       ->cpu_hotplug_begin()[lock_map_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)]
> 2) hardware triggers hotplug evetns
>    ->acpi_device_hotplug()
>      ->acpi_processor_remove()
> 2.a)   ->cpu_hotplug_begin()[lock_map_acquire(&cpu_hotplug.dep_map)]
>          ->unregister_cpu()
>            ->device_del()
>              ->kernfs_remove_by_name_ns()
>                ->__kernfs_remove()
>                  ->kernfs_drain()
> 2.b)               ->rwsem_acquire(&kn->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_)
> 
> So there is a possible deadlock scenario among 1.a, 1.b, 2.a and 2.b.
> I'm not familiar with kernfs, so could you please help to comment:
> 1) whether is a real deadlock issue?

Yes, it seems to be.  It's highly unlikely but still possible.

> 2) any recommended way to get it fixed?

This usually happens with "delete" files and it's worked around by
performing special self-removal on the file before actually removing
the device.  I suppose on/offline files would need to turn off
active_protection with kernfs_[un]break_active_protection() which
should probably grow sysfs and device layer wrappers.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/