| 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: <53290A18.704@marvell.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:08:08 +0800
From: Jane Li <jiel@...vell.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: fix one circular lockdep warning about console_lock
On 02/12/2014 05:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:50:00 +0800<jiel@...vell.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jane Li<jiel@...vell.com>
>>
>> This patch tries to fix a warning about possible circular locking
>> dependency.
>>
>> If do in following sequence:
>> enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo 0 > cpux/online)
>> lockdep will show warning as following:
>>
>> ======================================================
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 3.10.0 #2 Tainted: G O
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> sh/1271 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c06ebf7c>] console_cpu_notify+0x20/0x2c
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c012b4e8>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2c/0x58
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>> -> #2 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
>> [<c017bb7c>] lock_acquire+0x98/0x12c
>> [<c06f5014>] mutex_lock_nested+0x50/0x3d8
>> [<c012b4e8>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2c/0x58
>> [<c06ebfac>] _cpu_up+0x24/0x154
>> [<c06ec140>] cpu_up+0x64/0x84
>> [<c0981834>] smp_init+0x9c/0xd4
>> [<c0973880>] kernel_init_freeable+0x78/0x1c8
>> [<c06e7f40>] kernel_init+0x8/0xe4
>> [<c010eec8>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
>>
>> -> #1 (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}:
>> [<c017bb7c>] lock_acquire+0x98/0x12c
>> [<c06f5014>] mutex_lock_nested+0x50/0x3d8
>> [<c012b758>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x8/0xe8
>> [<c016b83c>] suspend_devices_and_enter+0x214/0x448
>> [<c016bc54>] pm_suspend+0x1e4/0x284
>> [<c016bdcc>] try_to_suspend+0xa4/0xbc
>> [<c0143848>] process_one_work+0x1c4/0x4fc
>> [<c0143f80>] worker_thread+0x138/0x37c
>> [<c014aaf8>] kthread+0xa4/0xb0
>> [<c010eec8>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
>>
>> -> #0 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
>> [<c017b5d0>] __lock_acquire+0x1b38/0x1b80
>> [<c017bb7c>] lock_acquire+0x98/0x12c
>> [<c01288c4>] console_lock+0x54/0x68
>> [<c06ebf7c>] console_cpu_notify+0x20/0x2c
>> [<c01501d4>] notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x84
>> [<c012b448>] __cpu_notify+0x2c/0x48
>> [<c012b5b0>] cpu_notify_nofail+0x8/0x14
>> [<c06e81bc>] _cpu_down+0xf4/0x258
>> [<c06e8344>] cpu_down+0x24/0x40
>> [<c06e921c>] store_online+0x30/0x74
>> [<c03b7298>] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x24
>> [<c025fc5c>] sysfs_write_file+0x16c/0x19c
>> [<c0207a98>] vfs_write+0xb4/0x190
>> [<c0207e58>] SyS_write+0x3c/0x70
>> [<c010ee00>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48
>>
>> Chain exists of:
>> console_lock --> cpu_add_remove_lock --> cpu_hotplug.lock
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
>> lock(cpu_add_remove_lock);
>> lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
>> lock(console_lock);
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
> These traces hurt my brain.
>
>> There are three locks involved in two sequence:
>> a) pm suspend:
>> console_lock (@suspend_console())
>> cpu_add_remove_lock (@disable_nonboot_cpus())
>> cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
> But but but. suspend_console() releases console_sem again. So the
> sequence is actually
>
> down(&console_sem) (@suspend_console())
> up(&console_sem) (@suspend_console())
> cpu_add_remove_lock (@disable_nonboot_cpus())
> cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
>
> So console_sem *doesn't* nest outside cpu_add_remove_lock and
> cpu_hotplug.lock.
Jan Kara and Jane have answered this question in other emails.
>> b) Plug-out CPUx:
>> cpu_add_remove_lock (@(cpu_down())
>> cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
>> console_lock (@console_cpu_notify()) => Lockdeps prints warning log.
>>
>> There should be not real deadlock, as flag of console_suspended can
>> protect this.
> console_lock() does down(&console_sem) *before* testing
> console_suspended, so I don't understand this sentence - a more
> detailed description would help.
Jane has answered this question in another email.
>> Printk registers cpu hotplug notify function. When CPUx is plug-out/in,
>> always execute console_lock() and console_unlock(). This patch
>> modifies that with console_trylock() and console_unlock(). Then use
>> that instead of the unconditional console_lock/unlock pair to avoid the
>> warning.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
>> @@ -1893,6 +1893,20 @@ void resume_console(void)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> + * console_flush - flush dmesg if console isn't suspended
>> + *
>> + * console_unlock always flushes the dmesg buffer, so just try to
>> + * grab&drop the console lock. If that fails we know that the current
>> + * holder will eventually drop the console lock and so flush the dmesg
>> + * buffers at the earliest possible time.
>> + */
> The comment should describe why we added this code, please: talk about
> cpu_hotplug.lock and console_lock.
Daniel has answered this question in another email.
>> +void console_flush(void)
>> +{
>> + if (console_trylock())
>> + console_unlock();
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> * console_cpu_notify - print deferred console messages after CPU hotplug
>> * @self: notifier struct
>> * @action: CPU hotplug event
>> @@ -1911,8 +1925,7 @@ static int console_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
>> case CPU_DEAD:
>> case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
>> case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
>> - console_lock();
>> - console_unlock();
>> + console_flush();
>> }
>> return NOTIFY_OK;
> Well, this is a bit hacky and makes the already-far-too-complex code
> even more complex. If it is indeed the case that the deadlock cannot
> really occur then let's try to find a way of suppressing the lockdep
> warning without making runtime changes.
>
> What I'm struggling with is what *should* the ranking of these locks be?
> From a conceptual high-level design standpoint, which is the
> "innermost" lock? I tend to think that it is console_lock, because
> blocking CPU hotplug is a quite high-level operation.
>
> But console_lock is such a kooky special-case in the way it is used to
> control the printk corking that it is hard to take general rules and
> apply them here.
Daniel and Jan Kara have answered this question in other emails.
Do you agree with this solution or have other comments?
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Jane
--
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