linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 115/144] fasync: Fix deadlock between task-context and interrupt-context kill

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]

Message-Id: <20180801164957.501054849@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Wed,  1 Aug 2018 18:52:22 +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, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 115/144] fasync: Fix deadlock between task-context and interrupt-context kill_fasync()

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

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

From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>

[ Upstream commit 7a107c0f55a3b4c6f84a4323df5610360bde1684 ]

I observed the following deadlock between them:

[task 1]                          [task 2]                         [task 3]
kill_fasync()                     mm_update_next_owner()           copy_process()
 spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock)   read_lock(&tasklist_lock)        write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
  send_sigio()                    <IRQ>                             ...
   read_lock(&fown->lock)         kill_fasync()                     ...
    read_lock(&tasklist_lock)      spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock)  ...

Task 1 can't acquire read locked tasklist_lock, since there is
already task 3 expressed its wish to take the lock exclusive.
Task 2 holds the read locked lock, but it can't take the spin lock.

Also, there is possible another deadlock (which I haven't observed):

[task 1]                            [task 2]
f_getown()                          kill_fasync()
 read_lock(&f_own->lock)             spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock,)
 <IRQ>                               send_sigio()                     write_lock_irq(&f_own->lock)
  kill_fasync()                       read_lock(&fown->lock)
   spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock,)

Actually, we do not need exclusive fa->fa_lock in kill_fasync_rcu(),
as it guarantees fa->fa_file->f_owner integrity only. It may seem,
that it used to give a task a small possibility to receive two sequential
signals, if there are two parallel kill_fasync() callers, and task
handles the first signal fastly, but the behaviour won't become
different, since there is exclusive sighand lock in do_send_sig_info().

The patch converts fa_lock into rwlock_t, and this fixes two above
deadlocks, as rwlock is allowed to be taken from interrupt handler
by qrwlock design.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/fcntl.c         |   15 +++++++--------
 include/linux/fs.h |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/fcntl.c
+++ b/fs/fcntl.c
@@ -588,9 +588,9 @@ int fasync_remove_entry(struct file *fil
 		if (fa->fa_file != filp)
 			continue;
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
+		write_lock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
 		fa->fa_file = NULL;
-		spin_unlock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
+		write_unlock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
 
 		*fp = fa->fa_next;
 		call_rcu(&fa->fa_rcu, fasync_free_rcu);
@@ -635,13 +635,13 @@ struct fasync_struct *fasync_insert_entr
 		if (fa->fa_file != filp)
 			continue;
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
+		write_lock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
 		fa->fa_fd = fd;
-		spin_unlock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
+		write_unlock_irq(&fa->fa_lock);
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	spin_lock_init(&new->fa_lock);
+	rwlock_init(&new->fa_lock);
 	new->magic = FASYNC_MAGIC;
 	new->fa_file = filp;
 	new->fa_fd = fd;
@@ -704,14 +704,13 @@ static void kill_fasync_rcu(struct fasyn
 {
 	while (fa) {
 		struct fown_struct *fown;
-		unsigned long flags;
 
 		if (fa->magic != FASYNC_MAGIC) {
 			printk(KERN_ERR "kill_fasync: bad magic number in "
 			       "fasync_struct!\n");
 			return;
 		}
-		spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
+		read_lock(&fa->fa_lock);
 		if (fa->fa_file) {
 			fown = &fa->fa_file->f_owner;
 			/* Don't send SIGURG to processes which have not set a
@@ -720,7 +719,7 @@ static void kill_fasync_rcu(struct fasyn
 			if (!(sig == SIGURG && fown->signum == 0))
 				send_sigio(fown, fa->fa_fd, band);
 		}
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
+		read_unlock(&fa->fa_lock);
 		fa = rcu_dereference(fa->fa_next);
 	}
 }
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1277,7 +1277,7 @@ static inline int locks_lock_file_wait(s
 }
 
 struct fasync_struct {
-	spinlock_t		fa_lock;
+	rwlock_t		fa_lock;
 	int			magic;
 	int			fa_fd;
 	struct fasync_struct	*fa_next; /* singly linked list */