linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the debug code

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:	Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:54:57 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akinobu.mita@...il.com, jack@...e.cz,
	sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, peter@...leysoftware.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in
 the debug code

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:43:37PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> changes from v4 to v5
> - found out a clear scenario which make a system crazy. at least it
>   should not be caused by the debug code.

Hello, Andrew

Please take this v5 patch instead of v2 patch, which you took. Or give your
opinion.

Thanks,
Byungchul

> 
> changes from v3 to v4
> - reuse a existing code as much as possible for preventing an infinite
>   recursive cycle.
> 
> changes from v2 to v3
> - avoid printk() only in case of lockup suspected, not real lockup in
>   which case it does not help at all.
> - consider not only console_sem.lock but also logbuf_lock which is used
>   by printk().
> 
> changes from v1 to v2
> - only change comment and commit message esp. replacing "deadlock" with
>   "infinite recursive cycle", since it is not an actual deadlock.
> 
> thanks,
> byungchul
> 
> -----8<-----
> >From eed077240e0b0d9f14d91037ef1915feab85aa4d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:23:24 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v5] lib/spinlock_debug.c: prevent a recursive cycle in the
>  debug code
> 
> It causes an infinite recursive cycle when using CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
> in the spin_dump(). Backtrace prints printk() -> console_trylock() ->
> do_raw_spin_lock() -> spin_dump() -> printk()... infinitely.
> 
> When the spin_dump() is called from printk(), we should prevent the
> debug spinlock code from calling printk() again in that context. It's
> reasonable to avoid printing "lockup suspected" which is just a warning
> message but it would cause a real lockup definitely.
> 
> The scenario is,
> 
> cpu0
> ====
> printk
>   console_trylock
>   console_unlock
>     up_console_sem
>       up
>         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
>         __up
>           wake_up_process
>             try_to_wake_up
>               raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock)
>                 __spin_lock_debug
>                   spin_dump <=== the problem point!
>                     printk
>                       console_trylock
>                         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
> 
>                         <=== DEADLOCK
> 
> cpu1
> ====
> printk
>   console_trylock
>     raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags)
>     __spin_lock_debug
>       spin_dump
>         printk
>           ...
> 
>           <=== repeat the recursive cycle infinitely
> 
> Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  kernel/printk/printk.c          |  5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> index 0374a59..cf7bc96 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/spinlock_debug.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,8 @@ static inline void debug_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>  	lock->owner_cpu = -1;
>  }
>  
> +extern int is_console_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock);
> +
>  static void __spin_lock_debug(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
>  	u64 i;
> @@ -113,11 +115,19 @@ static void __spin_lock_debug(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
>  			return;
>  		__delay(1);
>  	}
> -	/* lockup suspected: */
> -	spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If this function is called from printk(), then we should
> +	 * not call printk() more. Or it will cause an infinite
> +	 * recursive cycle!
> +	 */
> +	if (likely(!is_console_lock(lock))) {
> +		/* lockup suspected: */
> +		spin_dump(lock, "lockup suspected");
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -	trigger_all_cpu_backtrace();
> +		trigger_all_cpu_backtrace();
>  #endif
> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The trylock above was causing a livelock.  Give the lower level arch
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 2ce8826..568ab11 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1981,6 +1981,11 @@ asmlinkage __visible void early_printk(const char *fmt, ...)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +int is_console_lock(raw_spinlock_t *lock)
> +{
> +	return lock == &console_sem.lock;
> +}
> +
>  static int __add_preferred_console(char *name, int idx, char *options,
>  				   char *brl_options)
>  {
> -- 
> 1.9.1