linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bfq-mq: cause deadlock by executing exit

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: <20170208103342.GA4647@vader>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 02:33:42 -0800
From:   Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux-Kernal <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bfq-mq: cause deadlock by executing exit_icq body
 immediately

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:03:01AM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> > Il giorno 07 feb 2017, alle ore 22:45, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com> ha scritto:
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 06:33:46PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> this patch is meant to show that, if the  body of the hook exit_icq is executed
> >> from inside that hook, and not as deferred work, then a circular deadlock
> >> occurs.
> >> 
> >> It happens if, on a CPU
> >> - the body of icq_exit takes the scheduler lock,
> >> - it does so from inside the exit_icq hook, which is invoked with the queue
> >>  lock held
> >> 
> >> while, on another CPU
> >> - bfq_bio_merge, after taking the scheduler lock, invokes bfq_bic_lookup,
> >>  which, in its turn, takes the queue lock. bfq_bic_lookup needs to take such a
> >>  lock, because it invokes ioc_lookup_icq.
> >> 
> >> For more details, here is a lockdep report, right before the deadlock did occur.
> >> 
> >> [   44.059877] ======================================================
> >> [   44.124922] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >> [   44.125795] 4.10.0-rc5-bfq-mq+ #38 Not tainted
> >> [   44.126414] -------------------------------------------------------
> >> [   44.127291] sync/2043 is trying to acquire lock:
> >> [   44.128918]  (&(&bfqd->lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff90484195>] bfq_exit_icq_bfqq+0x55/0x140
> >> [   44.134052]
> >> [   44.134052] but task is already holding lock:
> >> [   44.134868]  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.....}, at: [<ffffffff9044738e>] put_io_context_active+0x6e/0xc0
> > 
> > Hey, Paolo,
> > 
> > I only briefly skimmed the code, but what are you using the queue_lock
> > for? You should just use your scheduler lock everywhere. blk-mq doesn't
> > use the queue lock, so the scheduler is the only thing you need mutual
> > exclusion against.
> 
> Hi Omar,
> the cause of the problem is that the hook functions bfq_request_merge
> and bfq_allow_bio_merge invoke, directly or through other functions,
> the function bfq_bic_lookup, which, in its turn, invokes
> ioc_lookup_icq.  The latter must be invoked with the queue lock held.
> In particular the offending lines in bfq_bic_lookup are:
> 
> 		spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> 		icq = icq_to_bic(ioc_lookup_icq(ioc, q));
> 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something and we can avoid taking this lock?

Ah, I didn't realize we still used the q->queue_lock for the icq stuff.
You're right, you still need that lock for ioc_lookup_icq(). Unless
there's something else I'm forgetting, that should be the only thing you
need it for in the core code, and you should use your scheduler lock for
everything else. What else are you using q->queue_lock for?