linux-kernel - Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:16:08 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: timers: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:05:49AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Sasha,
> 
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 
> Cc'ing Paul, Peter
> 
> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest, running the latest -next
> > kernel, I've hit the following lockdep warning:
> 
> > [ 3408.474461]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > 
> > [ 3408.474461]
> > 
> > [ 3408.475239]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > 
> > [ 3408.475809]        ----                    ----
> > 
> > [ 3408.476380]   lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> > 
> > [ 3408.476925]                                local_irq_disable();
> > 
> > [ 3408.477640]                                lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> >
> > [ 3408.478607]                                lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> 
> That comes from rcu_read_unlock:
> 
>     						rcu_read_unlock()
> 						 rcu_read_unlock_special()
> 						 ...
> 						  rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
>    					           raw_spin_lock(&boost_mtx->wait_lock);
> 
> > [ 3408.479445]   <Interrupt>
> > 
> > [ 3408.479796]     lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> 
> So the task on CPU0 holds rnp->boost_mtx.wait_lock and then the interrupt
> deadlocks on the timer->it_lock.
> 
> We can fix that particular issue in the posix-timer code by making the
> locking symetric:
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	spin_lock_irq(timer->lock);
> 
> ...
> 
> 	spin_unlock_irq(timer->lock);
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> instead of:
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	spin_lock_irq(timer->lock);
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> ...
> 
> 	spin_unlock_irq(timer->lock);
> 
> But the question is, whether this is the only offending code path in tree. We
> can avoid the hassle by making rtmutex->wait_lock irq safe.
> 
> Thoughts?

Given that the lock is disabling irq, I don't see a problem with
extending the RCU read-side critical section to cover the entire
irq-disabled region.  Your point about the hassle of finding and fixing
all the other instances of this sort is well taken, however.

							Thanx, Paul