linux-kernel - Re: N_PPP_SYNC ldisc BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context

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]

Message-ID: <4AC3C9B8.9080003@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:12:24 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: N_PPP_SYNC ldisc BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context

Tilman Schmidt wrote, On 09/30/2009 08:55 PM:

> Alan Cox schrieb:
>>>  [<c026d39b>] tty_unthrottle+0x10/0x38
>>>  [<f8dcc31f>] ppp_sync_receive+0x168/0x170 [ppp_synctty]
>>>  [<f8fbb9ce>] handle_minor_recv+0x187/0x1cd [capi]
>>>  [<f8fbc19b>] capi_recv_message+0x1d9/0x24e [capi]
>> Really need to see the rest of the call trace to be sure
> 
> There wasn't more than what I posted. I had six of them, they looked all
> identical, and all of them ended after the kernel_thread_helper line. 
> 
>>> Turns out the ppp_sync_receive() function (drivers/net/ppp_synctty.c
>>> line 385ff.) has a comment in front stating:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  * This can now be called from hard interrupt level as well
>>>  * as soft interrupt level or mainline.
>>>  */
>> Which is wrong. The flip_buffer_push -> rx processing path should never
>> be called from IRQ context and that was fixed for various drivers that
>> mis-set tty->low_latency, as well as in the PPP rework. The PPP case is
>> actually unrelated in many was.
> 
> Might be worth correcting that text then before is misleads someone.
> 
>>> Opinions?
>> See how we got into that code direct from an IRQ path. The expectation of
>> the tty logic is that it gets processed from work queues either
>> specifically in driver or via tty_flip_buffer_push when tty->low_latency
>> = 0
> 
> I'm at a loss here. According to all the backtraces:
> 
> - ppp_sync_receive() was called, as the LD's receive_buf method,
>   via handle_recv_skb() [drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c line 504, inlined]
>   from handle_minor_recv() [drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c line 519]
> 
> - handle_minor_recv() was called from capi_recv_message()
>   [drivers/isdn/capi/capi.c line 656]
> 
> - capi_recv_message() was called, as the CAPI application's
>   recv_message method, from recv_handler()
>   [drivers/isdn/capi/kcapi.c line 268]
> 
> - recv_handler() is never called directly. It's only scheduled
>   via the work queue ap->recv_work from capi_ctr_handle_message()
>   [drivers/isdn/capi/kcapi.c line 349]
> 
> Even if we don't trust the backtraces, there's not much room for
> another activation path. So for all I know, the expectation of the
> tty logic should have been met. The call was indeed processed from
> a work queue.
> 
> Why then does mutex_lock() complain?
 

Hmm... capi_recv_message() calls handle_minor_recv() under
spin_lock_irqsave(), doesn't it?

Jarek P.
--
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/