| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m1vdppbyjd.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:40:54 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sysctl: lockdep support for sysctl reference counting.
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 00:42 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> It is possible for get lock ordering deadlocks between locks
>> and waiting for the sysctl used count to drop to zero. We have
>> recently observed one of these in the networking code.
>>
>> So teach the sysctl code how to speak lockdep so the kernel
>> can warn about these kinds of rare issues proactively.
>
> It would be very good to extend this changelog with a more detailed
> explanation of the deadlock in question.
>
> Let me see if I got it right:
>
> We're holding a lock, while waiting for the refcount to drop to 0.
> Dropping that refcount is blocked on that lock.
>
> Something like that?
Exactly.
I must have written an explanation so many times that it got
lost when I wrote that commit message.
In particular the problem can be see with /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/forwarding.
The problem is that the handler for fowarding takes the rtnl_lock
with the reference count held.
Then we call unregister_sysctl_table under the rtnl_lock.
which waits for the reference count to go to zero.
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/sysctl.h | 4 ++
>> kernel/sysctl.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> index 39d471d..ec9b1dd 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <linux/compiler.h>
>> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
>>
>> struct file;
>> struct completion;
>> @@ -1087,6 +1088,9 @@ struct ctl_table_header
>> struct ctl_table *attached_by;
>> struct ctl_table *attached_to;
>> struct ctl_table_header *parent;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
>> + struct lockdep_map dep_map;
>> +#endif
>> };
>>
>> /* struct ctl_path describes where in the hierarchy a table is added */
>> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> index c5ef44f..ea8cc39 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
>> @@ -1454,12 +1454,63 @@ static struct ctl_table dev_table[] = {
>>
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sysctl_lock);
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
>> +
>> +# define lock_sysctl() spin_lock(&sysctl_lock)
>> +# define unlock_sysctl() spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock)
>> +
>> +static inline void table_acquire_use(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +static inline void table_release_use(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +static inline void table_acquire(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +static inline void table_contended(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +static inline void table_acquired(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +static inline void table_release(struct ctl_table_header *hdr) { }
>> +
>> +#else /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
>> +
>> +# define lock_sysctl() __raw_spin_lock(&sysctl_lock.raw_lock)
>> +# define unlock_sysctl() __raw_spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock.raw_lock)
>
> Uhmm, Please explain that -- without a proper explanation this is a NAK.
If the refcount is to be considered a lock. sysctl_lock must be considered
the internals of that lock. lockdep gets extremely confused otherwise.
Since the spinlock is static to this file I'm not especially worried
about it.
>> +static inline void table_acquire_use(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_acquire(&hdr->dep_map, 0, 0, 1, 2, NULL, _RET_IP_);
>> + lock_acquired(&hdr->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void table_release_use(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_release(&hdr->dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void table_acquire(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_acquire(&hdr->dep_map, 0, 0, 0, 2, NULL, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void table_contended(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_contended(&hdr->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void table_acquired(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_acquired(&hdr->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void table_release(struct ctl_table_header *hdr)
>> +{
>> + lock_release(&hdr->dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
>> +
>> /* called under sysctl_lock */
>> static int use_table(struct ctl_table_header *p)
>> {
>> if (unlikely(p->unregistering))
>> return 0;
>> p->used++;
>> + table_acquire_use(p);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1469,6 +1520,8 @@ static void unuse_table(struct ctl_table_header *p)
>> if (!--p->used)
>> if (unlikely(p->unregistering))
>> complete(p->unregistering);
>> +
>> + table_release_use(p);
>> }
>>
>> /* called under sysctl_lock, will reacquire if has to wait */
>> @@ -1478,47 +1531,54 @@ static void start_unregistering(struct ctl_table_header *p)
>> * if p->used is 0, nobody will ever touch that entry again;
>> * we'll eliminate all paths to it before dropping sysctl_lock
>> */
>> + table_acquire(p);
>> if (unlikely(p->used)) {
>> struct completion wait;
>> + table_contended(p);
>> +
>> init_completion(&wait);
>> p->unregistering = &wait;
>> - spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock);
>> + unlock_sysctl();
>> wait_for_completion(&wait);
>> - spin_lock(&sysctl_lock);
>> + lock_sysctl();
>> } else {
>> /* anything non-NULL; we'll never dereference it */
>> p->unregistering = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> }
>> + table_acquired(p);
>> +
>> /*
>> * do not remove from the list until nobody holds it; walking the
>> * list in do_sysctl() relies on that.
>> */
>> list_del_init(&p->ctl_entry);
>> +
>> + table_release(p);
>> }
>>
>
>> @@ -1951,7 +2011,13 @@ struct ctl_table_header *__register_sysctl_paths(
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> #endif
>> - spin_lock(&sysctl_lock);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>> + {
>> + static struct lock_class_key __key;
>> + lockdep_init_map(&header->dep_map, "sysctl_used", &__key, 0);
>> + }
>> +#endif
>
> This means every sysctl thingy gets the same class, is that
> intended/desired?
There is only one place we initialize it, and as far as I know really
only one place we take it. Which is the definition of a lockdep
class as far as I know.
Eric
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists