linux-kernel - Re: possible deadlock in aio

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: <20180910165317.GA3237@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:53:17 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     syzbot <syzbot+5b1df0420c523b45a953@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc:     bcrl@...ck.org, linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in aio_poll

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:41:05AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> =====================================================
> WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
> 4.19.0-rc2+ #229 Not tainted
> -----------------------------------------------------
> syz-executor2/9399 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> 00000000126506e0 (&ctx->fd_wqh){+.+.}, at: spin_lock
> include/linux/spinlock.h:329 [inline]
> 00000000126506e0 (&ctx->fd_wqh){+.+.}, at: aio_poll+0x760/0x1420
> fs/aio.c:1747
> 
> and this task is already holding:
> 000000002bed6bf6 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: spin_lock_irq
> include/linux/spinlock.h:354 [inline]
> 000000002bed6bf6 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: aio_poll+0x738/0x1420
> fs/aio.c:1746
> which would create a new lock dependency:
>  (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.} -> (&ctx->fd_wqh){+.+.}

ctx->fd_wqh seems to only exist in userfaultfd, which indeed seems
to do strange open coded waitqueue locking, and seems to fail to disable
irqs.  Something like this should fix it:

diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index bfa0ec69f924..356d2b8568c1 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -1026,7 +1026,7 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
 	struct userfaultfd_ctx *fork_nctx = NULL;
 
 	/* always take the fd_wqh lock before the fault_pending_wqh lock */
-	spin_lock(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
+	spin_lock_irq(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
 	__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fd_wqh, &wait);
 	for (;;) {
 		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
@@ -1112,13 +1112,13 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
 			ret = -EAGAIN;
 			break;
 		}
-		spin_unlock(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
+		spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
 		schedule();
-		spin_lock(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
+		spin_lock_irq(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
 	}
 	__remove_wait_queue(&ctx->fd_wqh, &wait);
 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
-	spin_unlock(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
+	spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->fd_wqh.lock);
 
 	if (!ret && msg->event == UFFD_EVENT_FORK) {
 		ret = resolve_userfault_fork(ctx, fork_nctx, msg);