| 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: <1494127937-12334-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 20:32:17 -0700
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH] block/mq: fix potential deadlock during cpu hotplug
This can be triggered by hot-unplug one cpu.
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.11.0+ #17 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
step_after_susp/2640 is trying to acquire lock:
(all_q_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffb33f95b8>] blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
but task is already holding lock:
(cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb306d04f>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x7f/0xe0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
lock_acquire+0x11c/0x230
__mutex_lock+0x92/0x990
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
get_online_cpus+0x64/0x80
blk_mq_init_allocated_queue+0x3a0/0x4e0
blk_mq_init_queue+0x3a/0x60
loop_add+0xe5/0x280
loop_init+0x124/0x177
do_one_initcall+0x53/0x1c0
kernel_init_freeable+0x1e3/0x27f
kernel_init+0xe/0x100
ret_from_fork+0x31/0x40
-> #0 (all_q_mutex){+.+...}:
__lock_acquire+0x189a/0x18a0
lock_acquire+0x11c/0x230
__mutex_lock+0x92/0x990
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
blk_mq_queue_reinit_dead+0x1c/0x20
cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x1f2/0x810
cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x42/0x80
_cpu_down+0xb2/0xe0
freeze_secondary_cpus+0xb6/0x390
suspend_devices_and_enter+0x3b3/0xa40
pm_suspend+0x129/0x490
state_store+0x82/0xf0
kobj_attr_store+0xf/0x20
sysfs_kf_write+0x45/0x60
kernfs_fop_write+0x135/0x1c0
__vfs_write+0x37/0x160
vfs_write+0xcd/0x1d0
SyS_write+0x58/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x8f/0x710
return_from_SYSCALL_64+0x0/0x7a
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
lock(all_q_mutex);
lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
lock(all_q_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
8 locks held by step_after_susp/2640:
#0: (sb_writers#6){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffb3244aed>] vfs_write+0x1ad/0x1d0
#1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb32d3a51>] kernfs_fop_write+0x101/0x1c0
#2: (s_active#166){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffb32d3a59>] kernfs_fop_write+0x109/0x1c0
#3: (pm_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffb30d2ecd>] pm_suspend+0x21d/0x490
#4: (acpi_scan_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb34dc3d7>] acpi_scan_lock_acquire+0x17/0x20
#5: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb306d6d7>] freeze_secondary_cpus+0x27/0x390
#6: (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffb306cfd5>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x5/0xe0
#7: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb306d04f>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x7f/0xe0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 2640 Comm: step_after_susp Not tainted 4.11.0+ #17
Hardware name: Dell Inc. OptiPlex 7040/0JCTF8, BIOS 1.4.9 09/12/2016
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x99/0xce
print_circular_bug+0x1fa/0x270
__lock_acquire+0x189a/0x18a0
lock_acquire+0x11c/0x230
? lock_acquire+0x11c/0x230
? blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
? blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
__mutex_lock+0x92/0x990
? blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
? kmem_cache_free+0x2cb/0x330
? anon_transport_class_unregister+0x20/0x20
? blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x110/0x110
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
? mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
blk_mq_queue_reinit_work+0x18/0x110
blk_mq_queue_reinit_dead+0x1c/0x20
cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x1f2/0x810
? __flow_cache_shrink+0x160/0x160
cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x42/0x80
_cpu_down+0xb2/0xe0
freeze_secondary_cpus+0xb6/0x390
suspend_devices_and_enter+0x3b3/0xa40
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x79/0x80
pm_suspend+0x129/0x490
state_store+0x82/0xf0
kobj_attr_store+0xf/0x20
sysfs_kf_write+0x45/0x60
kernfs_fop_write+0x135/0x1c0
__vfs_write+0x37/0x160
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x79/0x80
? rcu_sync_lockdep_assert+0x2f/0x60
? __sb_start_write+0xd9/0x1c0
? vfs_write+0x1ad/0x1d0
vfs_write+0xcd/0x1d0
SyS_write+0x58/0xc0
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x79/0x80
do_syscall_64+0x8f/0x710
? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
The cpu hotplug path will hold cpu_hotplug.lock and then reinit all exiting queues for blk mq
w/ all_q_mutex, however, blk_mq_init_allocated_queue() will contend these two locks in the
inversion order. This is due to commit eabe06595d (blk/mq: Cure cpu hotplug lock inversion),
it fixes a cpu hotplug lock inversion issue because of hotplug rework, however the hotplug
rework is still work-in-progress and lives in a -tip branch and mainline cannot yet trigger
that splat. The commit breaks the linus's tree in the merge window, so this patch reverts the
lock order and avoids to splat linus's tree.
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
---
block/blk-mq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 5d4ce7e..a7e6b35 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -2341,15 +2341,15 @@ struct request_queue *blk_mq_init_allocated_queue(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
blk_mq_init_cpu_queues(q, set->nr_hw_queues);
- mutex_lock(&all_q_mutex);
get_online_cpus();
+ mutex_lock(&all_q_mutex);
list_add_tail(&q->all_q_node, &all_q_list);
blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set(set, q);
blk_mq_map_swqueue(q, cpu_online_mask);
- put_online_cpus();
mutex_unlock(&all_q_mutex);
+ put_online_cpus();
if (!(set->flags & BLK_MQ_F_NO_SCHED)) {
int ret;
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists