linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.2 219/258] UBIFS: Kill unneeded locking in ubifs_init

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: <20151018014740.354435830@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 17 Oct 2015 18:58:52 -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, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	dedekind1@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH 4.2 219/258] UBIFS: Kill unneeded locking in ubifs_init_security

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

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

From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>

commit cf6f54e3f133229f02a90c04fe0ff9dd9d3264b4 upstream.

Fixes the following lockdep splat:
[    1.244527] =============================================
[    1.245193] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[    1.245193] 4.2.0-rc1+ #37 Not tainted
[    1.245193] ---------------------------------------------
[    1.245193] cp/742 is trying to acquire lock:
[    1.245193]  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812b3f69>] ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193] but task is already holding lock:
[    1.245193]  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81198e7f>] path_openat+0x3af/0x1280
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193] other info that might help us debug this:
[    1.245193]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193]        CPU0
[    1.245193]        ----
[    1.245193]   lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
[    1.245193]   lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193] 2 locks held by cp/742:
[    1.245193]  #0:  (sb_writers#5){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff811ad37f>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
[    1.245193]  #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81198e7f>] path_openat+0x3af/0x1280
[    1.245193]
[    1.245193] stack backtrace:
[    1.245193] CPU: 2 PID: 742 Comm: cp Not tainted 4.2.0-rc1+ #37
[    1.245193] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.7.5-0-ge51488c-20140816_022509-build35 04/01/2014
[    1.245193]  ffffffff8252d530 ffff88007b023a38 ffffffff814f6f49 ffffffff810b56c5
[    1.245193]  ffff88007c30cc80 ffff88007b023af8 ffffffff810a150d ffff88007b023a68
[    1.245193]  000000008101302a ffff880000000000 00000008f447e23f ffffffff8252d500
[    1.245193] Call Trace:
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff814f6f49>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff810b56c5>] ? console_unlock+0x1c5/0x510
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff810a150d>] __lock_acquire+0x1a6d/0x1ea0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff8109fa78>] ? __lock_is_held+0x58/0x80
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff810a1a93>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x270
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff812b3f69>] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff814fc83b>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6b/0x3a0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff812b3f69>] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff812b3f69>] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff812b3f69>] ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff8128e286>] ubifs_create+0xa6/0x1f0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81198e7f>] ? path_openat+0x3af/0x1280
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81195d15>] vfs_create+0x95/0xc0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff8119929c>] path_openat+0x7cc/0x1280
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff8109ffe3>] ? __lock_acquire+0x543/0x1ea0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81088f20>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x90/0xc0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81088c00>] ? calc_global_load_tick+0x60/0x90
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81088f20>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x90/0xc0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff811a9cef>] ? __alloc_fd+0xaf/0x180
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff8119ac55>] do_filp_open+0x75/0xd0
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff814ffd86>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x26/0x40
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff811a9cef>] ? __alloc_fd+0xaf/0x180
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81189bd9>] do_sys_open+0x129/0x200
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81189cc9>] SyS_open+0x19/0x20
[    1.245193]  [<ffffffff81500717>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6f

While the lockdep splat is a false positive, becuase path_openat holds i_mutex
of the parent directory and ubifs_init_security() tries to acquire i_mutex
of a new inode, it reveals that taking i_mutex in ubifs_init_security() is
in vain because it is only being called in the inode allocation path
and therefore nobody else can see the inode yet.

Reported-and-tested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Signed-off-by: dedekind1@...il.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/ubifs/xattr.c |    3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/ubifs/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/xattr.c
@@ -652,11 +652,8 @@ int ubifs_init_security(struct inode *de
 {
 	int err;
 
-	mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
 	err = security_inode_init_security(inode, dentry, qstr,
 					   &init_xattrs, 0);
-	mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
-
 	if (err) {
 		struct ubifs_info *c = dentry->i_sb->s_fs_info;
 		ubifs_err(c, "cannot initialize security for inode %lu, error %d",


--
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/