linux-kernel - [v2.6.34-stable 082/213] timer: Don't reinitialize the cpu base lock during CPU_UP

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: <1391630568-49251-83-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:00:37 -0500
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	<stable@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@...eaurora.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: [v2.6.34-stable 082/213] timer: Don't reinitialize the cpu base lock during CPU_UP_PREPARE

From: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@...eaurora.org>

                   -------------------
    This is a commit scheduled for the next v2.6.34 longterm release.
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/paulg/longterm-queue-2.6.34.git
    If you see a problem with using this for longterm, please comment.
                   -------------------

commit 42a5cf46cd56f46267d2a9fcf2655f4078cd3042 upstream.

An inactive timer's base can refer to a offline cpu's base.

In the current code, cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each
time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period
that another thread is trying to modify an inactive timer on that CPU
with holding its timer base lock, then the lock will be reinitialized
under its feet. This leads to following SPIN_BUG().

<0> BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#3, kworker/u:3/1466
<0> lock: 0xe3ebe000, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u:3/1466, .owner_cpu: 1
<4> [<c0013dc4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x11c) from [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc)
<4> [<c026e794>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x40/0xcc) from [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30)
<4> [<c076c160>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310)
<4> [<c009b858>] (mod_timer+0x294/0x310) from [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120)
<4> [<c00a5e04>] (queue_delayed_work_on+0x104/0x120) from [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c)
<4> [<c04eae00>] (sdhci_msm_bus_voting+0x88/0x9c) from [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48)
<4> [<c04d8780>] (sdhci_disable+0x40/0x48) from [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0)
<4> [<c04bf300>] (mmc_release_host+0x4c/0xb0) from [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc)
<4> [<c04c7aac>] (mmc_sd_detect+0x90/0xfc) from [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4)
<4> [<c04c2504>] (mmc_rescan+0x7c/0x2c4) from [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484)
<4> [<c00a6a7c>] (process_one_work+0x27c/0x484) from [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0)
<4> [<c00a6e94>] (worker_thread+0x210/0x3b0) from [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c)
<4> [<c00aad9c>] (kthread+0x80/0x8c) from [<c000ea80>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)

As an example, this particular crash occurred when CPU #3 is executing
mod_timer() on an inactive timer whose base is refered to offlined CPU
#2.  The code locked the timer_base corresponding to CPU #2. Before it
could proceed, CPU #2 came online and reinitialized the spinlock
corresponding to its base. Thus now CPU #3 held a lock which was
reinitialized. When CPU #3 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base
corresponding to CPU #2, we hit the above SPIN_BUG().

CPU #0		CPU #3				       CPU #2
------		-------				       -------
.....		 ......				      <Offline>
		mod_timer()
		 lock_timer_base
		   spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock)

cpu_up(2)	 .....				        ......
							init_timers_cpu()
....		 .....				    	spin_lock_init(&base->lock)
.....		   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock)  ......
		   <spin_bug>

Allocation of per_cpu timer vector bases is done only once under
"tvec_base_done[]" check. In the current code, spinlock_initialization
of base->lock isn't under this check. When a CPU is up each time the
base lock is reinitialized. Move base spinlock initialization under
the check.

Signed-off-by: Tirupathi Reddy <tirupath@...eaurora.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1368520142-4136-1-git-send-email-tirupath@codeaurora.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
---
 kernel/timer.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index b7e39516bf0b..12aa4bdb150d 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -1552,12 +1552,12 @@ static int __cpuinit init_timers_cpu(int cpu)
 			boot_done = 1;
 			base = &boot_tvec_bases;
 		}
+		spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
 		tvec_base_done[cpu] = 1;
 	} else {
 		base = per_cpu(tvec_bases, cpu);
 	}
 
-	spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
 
 	for (j = 0; j < TVN_SIZE; j++) {
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(base->tv5.vec + j);
-- 
1.8.5.2

--
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/