| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:11:36 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock from clock_was_set_delayed
As part of normal operaions, the hrtimer subsystem frequently calls
into the timekeeping code, creating a locking order of
hrtimer locks -> timekeeping locks
clock_was_set_delayed() was suppoed to allow us to avoid deadlocks
between the timekeeping the hrtimer subsystem, so that we could
notify the hrtimer subsytem the time had changed while holding
the timekeeping locks. This was done by scheduling delayed work
that would run later once we were out of the timekeeing code.
But unfortunately the lock chains are complex enoguh that in
scheduling delayed work, we end up eventually trying to grab
an hrtimer lock.
Sasha Levin noticed this in testing when the new seqlock lockdep
enablement triggered the following (somewhat abrieviated) message:
[ 251.100221] ======================================================
[ 251.100221] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 251.100221] 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053 Not tainted
[ 251.101967] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 251.101967] kworker/10:1/4506 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 251.101967] (timekeeper_seq){----..}, at: [<ffffffff81160e96>] retrigger_next_event+0x56/0x70
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] but task is already holding lock:
[ 251.101967] (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 251.101967]
-> #5 (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}:
[snipped]
-> #4 (&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock){-.-...}:
[snipped]
-> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
[snipped]
-> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
[snipped]
-> #1 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-...}:
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81194803>] validate_chain+0x6c3/0x7b0
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81194d9d>] __lock_acquire+0x4ad/0x580
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81194ff2>] lock_acquire+0x182/0x1d0
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff84398500>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81153e69>] __queue_work+0x1a9/0x3f0
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81154168>] queue_work_on+0x98/0x120
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff81161351>] clock_was_set_delayed+0x21/0x30
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff811c4bd1>] do_adjtimex+0x111/0x160
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff811e2711>] compat_sys_adjtimex+0x41/0x70
[ 251.101967] [<ffffffff843a4b49>] ia32_sysret+0x0/0x5
[ 251.101967]
-> #0 (timekeeper_seq){----..}:
[snipped]
[ 251.101967] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] Chain exists of:
timekeeper_seq --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock#11
[ 251.101967] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] CPU0 CPU1
[ 251.101967] ---- ----
[ 251.101967] lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
[ 251.101967] lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
[ 251.101967] lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
[ 251.101967] lock(timekeeper_seq);
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] 3 locks held by kworker/10:1/4506:
[ 251.101967] #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
[ 251.101967] #1: (hrtimer_work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
[ 251.101967] #2: (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
[ 251.101967]
[ 251.101967] stack backtrace:
[ 251.101967] CPU: 10 PID: 4506 Comm: kworker/10:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053
[ 251.101967] Workqueue: events clock_was_set_work
So the best solution is to avoid calling clock_was_set_delayed() while
holding the timekeeping lock, and instead using a flag variable to
decide if we should call clock_was_set() once we've released the locks.
This works for the case here, where the do_adjtimex() was the deadlock
trigger point. Unfortuantely, in update_wall_time() we still hold
the jiffies lock, which would deadlock with the ipi triggered by
clock_was_set(), preventing us from calling it even after we drop the
timekeeping lock. So instead call clock_was_set_delayed() at that point.
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> #3.10+
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
---
kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
index 998ec751..c1d36b6 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
@@ -1278,7 +1278,6 @@ static inline unsigned int accumulate_nsecs_to_secs(struct timekeeper *tk)
__timekeeping_set_tai_offset(tk, tk->tai_offset - leap);
- clock_was_set_delayed();
action = TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET;
}
}
@@ -1440,6 +1439,19 @@ static void update_wall_time(void)
write_seqcount_end(&timekeeper_seq);
out:
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
+ if (action & TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET) {
+ /*
+ * XXX - I'd rather we just call clock_was_set(), but
+ * since we're currently holding the jiffies lock, calling
+ * clock_was_set would trigger an ipi which would then grab
+ * the jiffies lock and we'd deadlock. :(
+ * The right solution should probably be droping
+ * the jiffies lock before calling update_wall_time
+ * but that requires some rework of the tick sched
+ * code.
+ */
+ clock_was_set_delayed();
+ }
}
/**
@@ -1700,11 +1712,13 @@ int do_adjtimex(struct timex *txc)
if (tai != orig_tai) {
__timekeeping_set_tai_offset(tk, tai);
timekeeping_update(tk, TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET);
- clock_was_set_delayed();
}
write_seqcount_end(&timekeeper_seq);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
+ if (tai != orig_tai)
+ clock_was_set();
+
ntp_notify_cmos_timer();
return ret;
--
1.8.3.2
--
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