linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] mm: backing-dev: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in cgwb

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

Message-ID: <20180622085035.2zn2voqgqxcx55f3@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:50:35 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.or, jack@...e.cz,
        zhangweiping@...ichuxing.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] mm: backing-dev: a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in
 cgwb_create()

On Wed 20-06-18 20:35:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:02:58AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > The kernel may sleep with holding a spinlock.
> > The function call path (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16.7 is:
> > 
> > [FUNC] schedule
> > lib/percpu-refcount.c, 222:
> >         schedule in __percpu_ref_switch_mode
> > lib/percpu-refcount.c, 339:
> >         __percpu_ref_switch_mode in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm
> > ./include/linux/percpu-refcount.h, 127:
> >         percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm in percpu_ref_kill
> > mm/backing-dev.c, 545:
> >         percpu_ref_kill in cgwb_kill
> > mm/backing-dev.c, 576:
> >         cgwb_kill in cgwb_create
> > mm/backing-dev.c, 573:
> >         _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in cgwb_create
> > 
> > This bug is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC-2) and checked by my
> > code review.
> 
> I disagree with your code review.
> 
>          * If the previous ATOMIC switching hasn't finished yet, wait for
>          * its completion.  If the caller ensures that ATOMIC switching
>          * isn't in progress, this function can be called from any context.
> 
> I believe cgwb_kill is always called under the spinlock, so we will never
> sleep because the percpu ref will never be switching to atomic mode.

You are right that the sleep under spinlock never happens. And the reason
is that percpu_ref_kill() never results in blocking - it does call
percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm() but the 'confirm' argument is NULL and thus
even percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm() never blocks.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR