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]
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:01:40 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression in next with use printk_safe buffers in printk

Hello,

Cc Rafael, just in case

On (02/13/17 10:59), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Looks like commit f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in
> printk") causes "possible circular locking dependency detected " for
> me on the first suspend.

thanks for the report.

> Reverting the following four patches in next makes it go away:
> 
> d9c23523ed98 ("printk: drop call_console_drivers() unused param")
> de6fcbdb68b2 ("printk: convert the rest to printk-safe")
> 8b1742c9c207 ("printk: remove zap_locks() function")
> f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in printk")


these patches basically just enable locked where it previously was
forcibly turned off. no timekeeping/pm/sched/etc code was modified.
can you share the link where Peter pointed out that this might be
caused by printk() changes?


so the report is

> kworker/0:0/3 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (tk_core){----..}, at: [<c01cc624>] retrigger_next_event+0x4c/0x90
>
>                but task is already holding lock:
>
>  (hrtimer_bases.lock){-.-...}, at: [<c01cc610>] retrigger_next_event+0x38/0x90
>
>                which lock already depends on the new lock.


some thoughts.

so there is a:
	BAR -> try_to_wake_up()-> lock_hrtimer_base()   ##hrtimer_bases.lock

chain (from #5).

and there is a:
	FOO -> printk()->try_to_wake_up()

chain (from #2)


note, that printk() patches that you have mentioned don't add anything
new here. the call chain existed before, we just keep lockdep enabled now.

what #1 does is

	timekeeping_resume()
		lock timekeeper_lock
		lock tk_core
			tk_debug_account_sleep_time()
			printk()			<< lockdep was disabled here before
				try_to_wake_up()
					lock_hrtimer_base()  ##hrtimer_bases.lock


so it's  tk_core -> hrtimer_bases.lock

and retrigger_next_event() does

	retrigger_next_event()
		lock hrtimer_bases
			ktime_get_update_offsets_now()
				lock tk_core


which is hrtimer_bases.lock -> tk_core


but I'm a bit confused by rt_b->rt_runtime_lock in this unsafe lock
scenario (so it's not ABBA, but ABAD)

>   lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
>                                lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
>                                lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
>   lock(tk_core);
>
>
> Chain exists of:
>
>	tk_core --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock


I'm lacking some knowledge here, sorry. where does the tk_core --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock
come from?



By the way, as a side note,

shouldn't tk_debug_account_sleep_time() do printk_deferred() instead of
'normal' printk()?
printk() calls from under timekeeping seqlock are not safe, aren't they?
and tk_debug_account_sleep_time() is under tk_core seq lock.

IOW, replace pr_info() in tk_debug_account_sleep_time() with something
like this

	printk_deferred(KERN_INFO "Suspended for %lld.%03lu seconds\n",
			(s64)t->tv_sec, t->tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_MSEC);


---

diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping_debug.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping_debug.c
index ca9fb800336b..b8f7146c3538 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping_debug.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping_debug.c
@@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ void tk_debug_account_sleep_time(struct timespec64 *t)
        int bin = min(fls(t->tv_sec), NUM_BINS-1);
 
        sleep_time_bin[bin]++;
-       pr_info("Suspended for %lld.%03lu seconds\n", (s64)t->tv_sec,
+       printk_deferred(KERN_INFO "Suspended for %lld.%03lu seconds\n",
+                       (s64)t->tv_sec,
                        t->tv_nsec / NSEC_PER_MSEC);
 }
 

---


I'll keep looking at the report more in the meantime.


	-ss

> 8< ---------------------
> [   48.950592] ======================================================
> [   48.950622] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [   48.950622] 4.10.0-rc7-next-20170213+ #101 Not tainted
> [   48.950622] -------------------------------------------------------
> [   48.950622] kworker/0:0/3 is trying to acquire lock:
> [   48.950653]  (tk_core){----..}, at: [<c01cc624>] retrigger_next_event+0x4c/0x90
> [   48.950683] 
>                but task is already holding lock:
> [   48.950683]  (hrtimer_bases.lock){-.-...}, at: [<c01cc610>] retrigger_next_event+0x38/0x90
> [   48.950714] 
>                which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> [   48.950714] 
>                the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [   48.950714] 
>                -> #5 (hrtimer_bases.lock){-.-...}:
> [   48.950744]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x64
> [   48.950775]        lock_hrtimer_base+0x28/0x58
> [   48.950775]        hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x20/0x5c8
> [   48.950775]        __enqueue_rt_entity+0x320/0x360
> [   48.950805]        enqueue_rt_entity+0x2c/0x44
> [   48.950805]        enqueue_task_rt+0x24/0x94
> [   48.950836]        ttwu_do_activate+0x54/0xc0
> [   48.950836]        try_to_wake_up+0x248/0x5c8
> [   48.950836]        __setup_irq+0x420/0x5f0
> [   48.950836]        request_threaded_irq+0xdc/0x184
> [   48.950866]        devm_request_threaded_irq+0x58/0xa4
> [   48.950866]        omap_i2c_probe+0x530/0x6a0
> [   48.950897]        platform_drv_probe+0x50/0xb0
> [   48.950897]        driver_probe_device+0x1f8/0x2cc
> [   48.950897]        __driver_attach+0xc0/0xc4
> [   48.950927]        bus_for_each_dev+0x6c/0xa0
> [   48.950927]        bus_add_driver+0x100/0x210
> [   48.950927]        driver_register+0x78/0xf4
> [   48.950958]        do_one_initcall+0x3c/0x16c
> [   48.950958]        kernel_init_freeable+0x20c/0x2d8
> [   48.950958]        kernel_init+0x8/0x110
> [   48.950988]        ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
> [   48.950988] 
>                -> #4 (&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock){-.-...}:
> [   48.951019]        _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x50
> [   48.951019]        rq_offline_rt+0x9c/0x2bc
> [   48.951019]        set_rq_offline.part.2+0x2c/0x58
> [   48.951049]        rq_attach_root+0x134/0x144
> [   48.951049]        cpu_attach_domain+0x18c/0x6f4
> [   48.951049]        build_sched_domains+0xba4/0xd80
> [   48.951080]        sched_init_smp+0x68/0x10c
> [   48.951080]        kernel_init_freeable+0x160/0x2d8
> [   48.951080]        kernel_init+0x8/0x110
> [   48.951080]        ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
> [   48.951110] 
>                -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
> [   48.951110]        _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x50
> [   48.951141]        task_fork_fair+0x30/0x124
> [   48.951141]        sched_fork+0x194/0x2e0
> [   48.951141]        copy_process.part.5+0x448/0x1a20
> [   48.951171]        _do_fork+0x98/0x7e8
> [   48.951171]        kernel_thread+0x2c/0x34
> [   48.951171]        rest_init+0x1c/0x18c
> [   48.951202]        start_kernel+0x35c/0x3d4
> [   48.951202]        0x8000807c
> [   48.951202] 
>                -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
> [   48.951232]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x64
> [   48.951232]        try_to_wake_up+0x30/0x5c8
> [   48.951232]        up+0x4c/0x60
> [   48.951263]        __up_console_sem+0x2c/0x58
> [   48.951263]        console_unlock+0x3b4/0x650
> [   48.951263]        vprintk_emit+0x270/0x474
> [   48.951293]        vprintk_default+0x20/0x28
> [   48.951293]        printk+0x20/0x30
> [   48.951324]        kauditd_hold_skb+0x94/0xb8
> [   48.951324]        kauditd_thread+0x1a4/0x56c
> [   48.951324]        kthread+0x104/0x148
> [   48.951354]        ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
> [   48.951354] 
>                -> #1 ((console_sem).lock){-.....}:
> [   48.951385]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x64
> [   48.951385]        down_trylock+0xc/0x2c
> [   48.951385]        __down_trylock_console_sem+0x24/0x80
> [   48.951385]        console_trylock+0x10/0x8c
> [   48.951416]        vprintk_emit+0x264/0x474
> [   48.951416]        vprintk_default+0x20/0x28
> [   48.951416]        printk+0x20/0x30
> [   48.951446]        tk_debug_account_sleep_time+0x5c/0x70
> [   48.951446]        __timekeeping_inject_sleeptime.constprop.3+0x170/0x1a0
> [   48.951446]        timekeeping_resume+0x218/0x23c
> [   48.951477]        syscore_resume+0x94/0x42c
> [   48.951477]        suspend_enter+0x554/0x9b4
> [   48.951477]        suspend_devices_and_enter+0xd8/0x4b4
> [   48.951507]        enter_state+0x934/0xbd4
> [   48.951507]        pm_suspend+0x14/0x70
> [   48.951507]        state_store+0x68/0xc8
> [   48.951538]        kernfs_fop_write+0xf4/0x1f8
> [   48.951538]        __vfs_write+0x1c/0x114
> [   48.951538]        vfs_write+0xa0/0x168
> [   48.951568]        SyS_write+0x3c/0x90
> [   48.951568]        __sys_trace_return+0x0/0x10
> [   48.951568] 
>                -> #0 (tk_core){----..}:
> [   48.951599]        lock_acquire+0xe0/0x294
> [   48.951599]        ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x5c/0x1d4
> [   48.951629]        retrigger_next_event+0x4c/0x90
> [   48.951629]        on_each_cpu+0x40/0x7c
> [   48.951629]        clock_was_set_work+0x14/0x20
> [   48.951660]        process_one_work+0x2b4/0x808
> [   48.951660]        worker_thread+0x3c/0x550
> [   48.951660]        kthread+0x104/0x148
> [   48.951690]        ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
> [   48.951690] 
>                other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> [   48.951690] Chain exists of:
>                  tk_core --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock
> 
> [   48.951721]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
> [   48.951721]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [   48.951721]        ----                    ----
> [   48.951721]   lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> [   48.951751]                                lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> [   48.951751]                                lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> [   48.951751]   lock(tk_core);
> [   48.951782] 
>                 *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> [   48.951782] 3 locks held by kworker/0:0/3:
> [   48.951782]  #0:  ("events"){.+.+.+}, at: [<c0156590>] process_one_work+0x1f8/0x808
> [   48.951812]  #1:  (hrtimer_work){+.+...}, at: [<c0156590>] process_one_work+0x1f8/0x808
> [   48.951843]  #2:  (hrtimer_bases.lock){-.-...}, at: [<c01cc610>] retrigger_next_event+0x38/0x90
> [   48.951843] 
>                stack backtrace:
> [   48.951873] CPU: 0 PID: 3 Comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 4.10.0-rc7-next-20170213+ #101
> [   48.951873] Hardware name: Generic OMAP36xx (Flattened Device Tree)
> [   48.951904] Workqueue: events clock_was_set_work
> [   48.951904] [<c0110208>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010c224>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [   48.951934] [<c010c224>] (show_stack) from [<c04ca6c0>] (dump_stack+0xac/0xe0)
> [   48.951934] [<c04ca6c0>] (dump_stack) from [<c019b5cc>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x308)
> [   48.951965] [<c019b5cc>] (print_circular_bug) from [<c019d2a8>] (validate_chain+0xf50/0x1324)
> [   48.951965] [<c019d2a8>] (validate_chain) from [<c019ec18>] (__lock_acquire+0x468/0x7e8)
> [   48.951995] [<c019ec18>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c019f634>] (lock_acquire+0xe0/0x294)
> [   48.951995] [<c019f634>] (lock_acquire) from [<c01d0ea0>] (ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x5c/0x1d4)
> [   48.952026] [<c01d0ea0>] (ktime_get_update_offsets_now) from [<c01cc624>] (retrigger_next_event+0x4c/0x90)
> [   48.952026] [<c01cc624>] (retrigger_next_event) from [<c01e4e24>] (on_each_cpu+0x40/0x7c)
> [   48.952056] [<c01e4e24>] (on_each_cpu) from [<c01cafc4>] (clock_was_set_work+0x14/0x20)
> [   48.952056] [<c01cafc4>] (clock_was_set_work) from [<c015664c>] (process_one_work+0x2b4/0x808)
> [   48.952087] [<c015664c>] (process_one_work) from [<c0157774>] (worker_thread+0x3c/0x550)
> [   48.952087] [<c0157774>] (worker_thread) from [<c015d644>] (kthread+0x104/0x148)
> [   48.952087] [<c015d644>] (kthread) from [<c0107830>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24)
> [   48.952911] PM: noirq resume of devices complete after 33.355 msecs
> ...
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ