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:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:52:27 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 50/52] x86/intel_rdt: Fix potential deadlock during resctrl unmount

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>


[ Upstream commit 36b6f9fcb8928c06b6638a4cf91bc9d69bb49aa2 ]

Lockdep warns about a potential deadlock:

[   66.782842] ======================================================
[   66.782888] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[   66.782937] 4.14.0-rc2-test-test+ #48 Not tainted
[   66.782983] ------------------------------------------------------
[   66.783052] umount/336 is trying to acquire lock:
[   66.783117]  (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffff81032395>] rdt_kill_sb+0x215/0x390
[   66.783193]
               but task is already holding lock:
[   66.783244]  (rdtgroup_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810321b6>] rdt_kill_sb+0x36/0x390
[   66.783305]
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[   66.783364]
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[   66.783419]
               -> #3 (rdtgroup_mutex){+.+.}:
[   66.783467]        __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x13f0
[   66.783509]        lock_acquire+0xaf/0x220
[   66.783543]        __mutex_lock+0x71/0x9b0
[   66.783575]        mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
[   66.783610]        intel_rdt_online_cpu+0x3b/0x430
[   66.783649]        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xab/0x8e0
[   66.783687]        cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
[   66.783722]        smpboot_thread_fn+0x1cc/0x270
[   66.783764]        kthread+0x16e/0x190
[   66.783794]        ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
[   66.783825]
               -> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
[   66.783870]        __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x13f0
[   66.783906]        lock_acquire+0xaf/0x220
[   66.783938]        cpuhp_issue_call+0x102/0x170
[   66.783974]        __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x154/0x2a0
[   66.784023]        __cpuhp_setup_state+0xc7/0x170
[   66.784061]        page_writeback_init+0x43/0x67
[   66.784097]        pagecache_init+0x43/0x4a
[   66.784131]        start_kernel+0x3ad/0x3f7
[   66.784165]        x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
[   66.784204]        x86_64_start_kernel+0x72/0x75
[   66.784241]        verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
[   66.784270]
               -> #1 (cpuhp_state_mutex){+.+.}:
[   66.784319]        __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x13f0
[   66.784355]        lock_acquire+0xaf/0x220
[   66.784387]        __mutex_lock+0x71/0x9b0
[   66.784419]        mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
[   66.784454]        __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x52/0x2a0
[   66.784497]        __cpuhp_setup_state+0xc7/0x170
[   66.784535]        page_alloc_init+0x28/0x30
[   66.784569]        start_kernel+0x148/0x3f7
[   66.784602]        x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
[   66.784642]        x86_64_start_kernel+0x72/0x75
[   66.784678]        verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
[   66.784707]
               -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
[   66.784759]        check_prev_add+0x32f/0x6e0
[   66.784794]        __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x13f0
[   66.784830]        lock_acquire+0xaf/0x220
[   66.784863]        cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
[   66.784896]        rdt_kill_sb+0x215/0x390
[   66.784930]        deactivate_locked_super+0x3e/0x70
[   66.784968]        deactivate_super+0x40/0x60
[   66.785003]        cleanup_mnt+0x3f/0x80
[   66.785034]        __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20
[   66.785070]        task_work_run+0x8b/0xc0
[   66.785103]        exit_to_usermode_loop+0x94/0xa0
[   66.786804]        syscall_return_slowpath+0xe8/0x150
[   66.788502]        entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0xab/0xad
[   66.790194]
               other info that might help us debug this:

[   66.795139] Chain exists of:
                 cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> cpuhp_state --> rdtgroup_mutex

[   66.800035]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[   66.803267]        CPU0                    CPU1
[   66.804867]        ----                    ----
[   66.806443]   lock(rdtgroup_mutex);
[   66.808002]                                lock(cpuhp_state);
[   66.809565]                                lock(rdtgroup_mutex);
[   66.811110]   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
[   66.812608]
                *** DEADLOCK ***

[   66.816983] 2 locks held by umount/336:
[   66.818418]  #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#35){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81229738>] deactivate_super+0x38/0x60
[   66.819922]  #1:  (rdtgroup_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810321b6>] rdt_kill_sb+0x36/0x390

When the resctrl filesystem is unmounted the locks should be obtain in the
locks in the same order as was done when the cpus came online:

      cpu_hotplug_lock before rdtgroup_mutex.

This also requires to switch the static_branch_disable() calls to the
_cpulocked variant because now cpu hotplug lock is held already.

[ tglx: Switched to cpus_read_[un]lock ]

Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Tested-by: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Acked-by: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Acked-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cc292e76be073f7260604651711c47b09fd0dc81.1508490116.git.reinette.chatre@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c
@@ -1297,9 +1297,7 @@ static void rmdir_all_sub(void)
 		kfree(rdtgrp);
 	}
 	/* Notify online CPUs to update per cpu storage and PQR_ASSOC MSR */
-	get_online_cpus();
 	update_closid_rmid(cpu_online_mask, &rdtgroup_default);
-	put_online_cpus();
 
 	kernfs_remove(kn_info);
 	kernfs_remove(kn_mongrp);
@@ -1310,6 +1308,7 @@ static void rdt_kill_sb(struct super_blo
 {
 	struct rdt_resource *r;
 
+	cpus_read_lock();
 	mutex_lock(&rdtgroup_mutex);
 
 	/*Put everything back to default values. */
@@ -1317,11 +1316,12 @@ static void rdt_kill_sb(struct super_blo
 		reset_all_ctrls(r);
 	cdp_disable();
 	rmdir_all_sub();
-	static_branch_disable(&rdt_alloc_enable_key);
-	static_branch_disable(&rdt_mon_enable_key);
-	static_branch_disable(&rdt_enable_key);
+	static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&rdt_alloc_enable_key);
+	static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&rdt_mon_enable_key);
+	static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(&rdt_enable_key);
 	kernfs_kill_sb(sb);
 	mutex_unlock(&rdtgroup_mutex);
+	cpus_read_unlock();
 }
 
 static struct file_system_type rdt_fs_type = {


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ