linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] xen: avoid deadlock in xenbus driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53808967-354d-d432-dbd5-9008872cb618@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:30:16 +0100
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Cc:     boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen: avoid deadlock in xenbus driver

Hi,

On 08/06/17 15:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There has been a report about a deadlock in the xenbus driver:
> 
> [  247.979498] ======================================================
> [  247.985688] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [  247.991882] 4.12.0-rc4-00022-gc4b25c0 #575 Not tainted
> [  247.997040] ------------------------------------------------------
> [  248.003232] xenbus/91 is trying to acquire lock:
> [  248.007875]  (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffff00000863e904>]
> xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x3c/0x230
> [  248.017163]
> [  248.017163] but task is already holding lock:
> [  248.023096]  (xb_write_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffff00000863a940>]
> xenbus_thread+0x5f0/0x798
> [  248.031267]
> [  248.031267] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [  248.031267]
> [  248.039615]
> [  248.039615] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [  248.047176]
> [  248.047176] -> #1 (xb_write_mutex){+.+...}:
> [  248.052943]        __lock_acquire+0x1728/0x1778
> [  248.057498]        lock_acquire+0xc4/0x288
> [  248.061630]        __mutex_lock+0x84/0x868
> [  248.065755]        mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
> [  248.070227]        xs_send+0x164/0x1f8
> [  248.074015]        xenbus_dev_request_and_reply+0x6c/0x88
> [  248.079427]        xenbus_file_write+0x260/0x420
> [  248.084073]        __vfs_write+0x48/0x138
> [  248.088113]        vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b8
> [  248.091983]        SyS_write+0x54/0xb0
> [  248.095768]        el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
> [  248.099897]
> [  248.099897] -> #0 (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> [  248.106088]        print_circular_bug+0x80/0x2e0
> [  248.110730]        __lock_acquire+0x1768/0x1778
> [  248.115288]        lock_acquire+0xc4/0x288
> [  248.119417]        __mutex_lock+0x84/0x868
> [  248.123545]        mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
> [  248.128016]        xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x3c/0x230
> [  248.133005]        xenbus_thread+0x788/0x798
> [  248.137306]        kthread+0x110/0x140
> [  248.141087]        ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40
> 
> It is rather easy to avoid by dropping xb_write_mutex before calling
> xenbus_dev_queue_reply().
> 
> Fixes: fd8aa9095a95c02dcc35540a263267c29b8fda9d ("xen: optimize xenbus
> driver for multiple concurrent xenstore accesses").
> 
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.11
> Reported-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>

I managed to find a reliable (though weird) reproducer and can confirm
that this patch fixes the issue.
So many thanks for the quick work!

Tested-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>

Cheers,
Andre.

> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
> ---
>  drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_comms.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_comms.c b/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_comms.c
> index 856ada5d39c9..5b081a01779d 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_comms.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_comms.c
> @@ -299,17 +299,7 @@ static int process_msg(void)
>  		mutex_lock(&xb_write_mutex);
>  		list_for_each_entry(req, &xs_reply_list, list) {
>  			if (req->msg.req_id == state.msg.req_id) {
> -				if (req->state == xb_req_state_wait_reply) {
> -					req->msg.type = state.msg.type;
> -					req->msg.len = state.msg.len;
> -					req->body = state.body;
> -					req->state = xb_req_state_got_reply;
> -					list_del(&req->list);
> -					req->cb(req);
> -				} else {
> -					list_del(&req->list);
> -					kfree(req);
> -				}
> +				list_del(&req->list);
>  				err = 0;
>  				break;
>  			}
> @@ -317,6 +307,15 @@ static int process_msg(void)
>  		mutex_unlock(&xb_write_mutex);
>  		if (err)
>  			goto out;
> +
> +		if (req->state == xb_req_state_wait_reply) {
> +			req->msg.type = state.msg.type;
> +			req->msg.len = state.msg.len;
> +			req->body = state.body;
> +			req->state = xb_req_state_got_reply;
> +			req->cb(req);
> +		} else
> +			kfree(req);
>  	}
>  
>  	mutex_unlock(&xs_response_mutex);
>