linux-kernel - [ 25/29] panic: fix a possible deadlock in panic()

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: <20130410224806.674801360@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:49:43 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [ 25/29] panic: fix a possible deadlock in panic()

3.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>

commit 190320c3b6640d4104650f55ff69611e050ea06b upstream.

panic_lock is meant to ensure that panic processing takes place only on
one cpu; if any of the other cpus encounter a panic, they will spin
waiting to be shut down.

However, this causes a regression in this scenario:

1. Cpu 0 encounters a panic and acquires the panic_lock
   and proceeds with the panic processing.
2. There is an interrupt on cpu 0 that also encounters
   an error condition and invokes panic.
3. This second invocation fails to acquire the panic_lock
   and enters the infinite while loop in panic_smp_self_stop.

Thus all panic processing is stopped, and the cpu is stuck for eternity
in the while(1) inside panic_smp_self_stop.

To address this, disable local interrupts with local_irq_disable before
acquiring the panic_lock.  This will prevent interrupt handlers from
executing during the panic processing, thus avoiding this particular
problem.

Signed-off-by: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/panic.c |    8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/panic.c
+++ b/kernel/panic.c
@@ -75,6 +75,14 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
 	int state = 0;

 	/*
+	 * Disable local interrupts. This will prevent panic_smp_self_stop
+	 * from deadlocking the first cpu that invokes the panic, since
+	 * there is nothing to prevent an interrupt handler (that runs
+	 * after the panic_lock is acquired) from invoking panic again.
+	 */
+	local_irq_disable();
+
+	/*
 	 * It's possible to come here directly from a panic-assertion and
 	 * not have preempt disabled. Some functions called from here want
 	 * preempt to be disabled. No point enabling it later though...

--
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/