linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 020/190] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180411183551.286769216@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 20:34:26 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>,
        Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@...rosoft.com>,
        Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 020/190] CIFS: silence lockdep splat in cifs_relock_file()

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

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

From: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>

[ Upstream commit 560d388950ceda5e7c7cdef7f3d9a8ff297bbf9d ]

cifs_relock_file() can perform a down_write() on the inode's lock_sem even
though it was already performed in cifs_strict_readv().  Lockdep complains
about this.  AFAICS, there is no problem here, and lockdep just needs to be
told that this nesting is OK.

 =============================================
 [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
 4.11.0+ #20 Not tainted
 ---------------------------------------------
 cat/701 is trying to acquire lock:
  (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00

 but task is already holding lock:
  (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);
   lock(&cifsi->lock_sem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by cat/701:
  #0:  (&cifsi->lock_sem){++++.+}, at: cifs_strict_readv+0x177/0x310

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 0 PID: 701 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.11.0+ #20
 Call Trace:
  dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
  __lock_acquire+0x17dd/0x2260
  ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
  ? preempt_schedule_irq+0x6b/0x80
  lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
  ? lock_acquire+0xcc/0x260
  ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
  down_read+0x2d/0x70
  ? cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
  cifs_reopen_file+0x7a7/0xc00
  ? printk+0x43/0x4b
  cifs_readpage_worker+0x327/0x8a0
  cifs_readpage+0x8c/0x2a0
  generic_file_read_iter+0x692/0xd00
  cifs_strict_readv+0x29f/0x310
  generic_file_splice_read+0x11c/0x1c0
  do_splice_to+0xa5/0xc0
  splice_direct_to_actor+0xfa/0x350
  ? generic_pipe_buf_nosteal+0x10/0x10
  do_splice_direct+0xb5/0xe0
  do_sendfile+0x278/0x3a0
  SyS_sendfile64+0xc4/0xe0
  entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xbe

Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>
Acked-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/cifs/file.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -589,7 +589,7 @@ cifs_relock_file(struct cifsFileInfo *cf
 	struct cifs_tcon *tcon = tlink_tcon(cfile->tlink);
 	int rc = 0;

-	down_read(&cinode->lock_sem);
+	down_read_nested(&cinode->lock_sem, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 	if (cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
 		/* can cache locks - no need to relock */
 		up_read(&cinode->lock_sem);