linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Fix potentail deadlock between delete & sysfs ops

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:   Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:11:45 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Fix potentail deadlock between delete & sysfs
 ops

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:02:33 -0400
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:

> The lockdep code had reported the following unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(s_active#228);
>                                lock(&bdev->bd_mutex/1);
>                                lock(s_active#228);
>   lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> The deadlock may happen when one task (CPU1) is trying to delete
> a partition in a block device and another task (CPU0) is accessing
> tracing sysfs file in that partition.
> 
> To avoid that, accessing tracing sysfs file will now use a mutex
> trylock loop and the operation will fail if a delete operation is
> in progress.
> 

This is wrong at a lot of levels.

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
>  block/ioctl.c           |  3 +++
>  include/linux/fs.h      |  1 +
>  kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
> index 0de02ee..7211608 100644
> --- a/block/ioctl.c
> +++ b/block/ioctl.c
> @@ -86,12 +86,15 @@ static int blkpg_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, struct blkpg_ioctl_arg __user
>  				return -EBUSY;
>  			}
>  			/* all seems OK */
> +			bdev->bd_deleting = 1;

Note, one would need a  memory barrier here. But I'm not sure how much
of a fast path this location is.

			/*
			 * Make sure bd_deleting is set before taking
			 * mutex.
			 */
			smp_mb();

>  			fsync_bdev(bdevp);
>  			invalidate_bdev(bdevp);
>  
>  			mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_mutex, 1);
>  			delete_partition(disk, partno);
>  			mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +			bdev->bd_deleting = 0;
> +
>  			mutex_unlock(&bdevp->bd_mutex);
>  			bdput(bdevp);
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 7b5d681..5d4ae9d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ struct block_device {
>  #endif
>  	struct block_device *	bd_contains;
>  	unsigned		bd_block_size;
> +	int			bd_deleting;
>  	struct hd_struct *	bd_part;
>  	/* number of times partitions within this device have been opened. */
>  	unsigned		bd_part_count;
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> index bc364f8..715e77e 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> @@ -1605,6 +1605,18 @@ static struct request_queue *blk_trace_get_queue(struct block_device *bdev)
>  	return bdev_get_queue(bdev);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Read/write to the tracing sysfs file requires taking references to the
> + * sysfs file and then acquiring the bd_mutex. Deleting a block device
> + * requires acquiring the bd_mutex and then waiting for all the sysfs
> + * references to be gone. This can lead to deadlock if both operations
> + * happen simultaneously. To avoid this problem, read/write to the
> + * the tracing sysfs files can now fail if the bd_mutex cannot be
> + * acquired while a deletion operation is in progress.
> + *
> + * A mutex trylock loop is used assuming that tracing sysfs operations
> + * aren't frequently enough to cause any contention problem.
> + */
>  static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show(struct device *dev,
>  					 struct device_attribute *attr,
>  					 char *buf)
> @@ -1622,7 +1634,11 @@ static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show(struct device *dev,
>  	if (q == NULL)
>  		goto out_bdput;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +	while (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) {

		/* Make sure trylock happens before reading bd_deleting */
		smp_mb();

Since we don't take the lock, there's nothing that prevents the CPU
from fetching bd_deleting early, and this going into an infinite spin
even though bd_deleting is clear (without the memory barriers).

> +		if (bdev->bd_deleting)
> +			goto out_bdput;

You also just turned the mutex into a spinlock. What happens if we just
preempted the owner of bdev->bd_mutex and are an RT task with higher
priority? This will turn into a live lock.

> +		schedule();
> +	}
>  
>  	if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) {
>  		ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", !!q->blk_trace);
> @@ -1683,7 +1699,11 @@ static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_store(struct device *dev,
>  	if (q == NULL)
>  		goto out_bdput;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +	while (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) {

		/* Make sure trylock happens before reading bd_deleting */
		smp_mb();

> +		if (bdev->bd_deleting)
> +			goto out_bdput;

Same here.

-- Steve

> +		schedule();
> +	}
>  
>  	if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) {
>  		if (value)