linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

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, 29 Aug 2017 21:34:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> While looking at this, I stumbled upon another one also enabled by
> "completion annotation" in the TIP:
> 
> | ======================================================
> | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391f-dirty #112 Not tainted
> | ------------------------------------------------------
> | cpu-off.sh/426 is trying to acquire lock:
> |  ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810cb344>] takedown_cpu+0x84/0xf0
> |
> | but task is already holding lock:
> |  (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811220f2>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> |
> | which lock already depends on the new lock.
> |
> | the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> |
> | -> #1 (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}:
> |        __mutex_lock+0x88/0x9a0
> |        mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> |        irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> |        irq_affinity_online_cpu+0x13/0xd0
> |        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x4a/0x130
> |
> | -> #0 ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}:
> |        check_prev_add+0x351/0x700
> |        __lock_acquire+0x114a/0x1220
> |        lock_acquire+0x47/0x70
> |        wait_for_completion+0x5c/0x180
> |        takedown_cpu+0x84/0xf0
> |        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x4a/0x130
> |        cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> …
> |
> | other info that might help us debug this:
> |
> |  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> |        CPU0                    CPU1
> |        ----                    ----
> |   lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> |                                lock((complete)&st->done);
> |                                lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> |   lock((complete)&st->done);
> |
> |  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the
> CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock
> while the other CPU is waiting for the completion.
> This is not an issue if my interpretation of lockdep here is correct.
> 
> How do we annotate this?

The below is the nicest thing I could come up with. This results in
_cpu_down and _cpu_up having a different class for st->done.

Its a bit weird, and would probably need a wee comment to explain
things, but it boots and avoids the splat on hotplug.

---
 kernel/cpu.c | 18 ++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index acf5308fad51..d93df21c5cfb 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -375,13 +375,6 @@ static int cpuhp_up_callbacks(unsigned int cpu, struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
 /*
  * The cpu hotplug threads manage the bringup and teardown of the cpus
  */
-static void cpuhp_create(unsigned int cpu)
-{
-	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu);
-
-	init_completion(&st->done);
-}
-
 static int cpuhp_should_run(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = this_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state);
@@ -520,7 +513,6 @@ static int cpuhp_kick_ap_work(unsigned int cpu)
 
 static struct smp_hotplug_thread cpuhp_threads = {
 	.store			= &cpuhp_state.thread,
-	.create			= &cpuhp_create,
 	.thread_should_run	= cpuhp_should_run,
 	.thread_fn		= cpuhp_thread_fun,
 	.thread_comm		= "cpuhp/%u",
@@ -687,7 +679,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen,
 			   enum cpuhp_state target)
 {
 	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu);
-	int prev_state, ret = 0;
+	int i, prev_state, ret = 0;
 
 	if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
 		return -EBUSY;
@@ -697,6 +689,9 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen,
 
 	cpus_write_lock();
 
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+		init_completion(&per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, i)->done);
+
 	cpuhp_tasks_frozen = tasks_frozen;
 
 	prev_state = st->state;
@@ -802,10 +797,13 @@ static int _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen, enum cpuhp_state target)
 {
 	struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st = per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, cpu);
 	struct task_struct *idle;
-	int ret = 0;
+	int i, ret = 0;
 
 	cpus_write_lock();
 
+	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
+		init_completion(&per_cpu_ptr(&cpuhp_state, i)->done);
+
 	if (!cpu_present(cpu)) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto out;