| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2780774e-b397-dcc2-6950-cccb527d5014@arista.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:59:35 +0000
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: lkp@...org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [tty] c96cf923a9:
WARNING:possible_circular_locking_dependency_detected
Hi, everyone,
I'm looking into that.
Greg, please, keep tty patches set in linux-next, I'll address this
report before it goes into master.
This theoretical issue is not strictly related to the patches set, but
can be hit without patches.
On 12/11/18 1:49 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 11. 12. 18, 10:11, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
>>
>> commit: c96cf923a98d1b094df9f0cf97a83e118817e31b ("tty: Don't block on IO when ldisc change is pending")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/tty.git tty-testing
> ...
>> [ 87.209665] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> [ 87.210547] 4.20.0-rc4-00057-gc96cf92 #1 Tainted: G W
>> [ 87.211449] ------------------------------------------------------
>> [ 87.212405] getty/519 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 87.213074] (____ptrval____) (&obj_hash[i].lock){-.-.}, at: debug_check_no_obj_freed+0xb4/0x302
>> [ 87.214343]
>> [ 87.214343] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 87.215174] (____ptrval____) (&port_lock_key){-.-.}, at: uart_shutdown+0x3a3/0x4e2
>
> This looks sensible -- normal use case.
>
>> [ 87.216260] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>> [ 87.216260]
>> [ 87.217421]
>> [ 87.217421] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> This is during console init, so even if the report is not false
> positive, the deadlock is unlikely to happen. And only triggered with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE.
>
> In any way, I don't see any connection between #2 and #0 below. The
> stack traces are completely different -- one from start_kernel, one from
> exit syscall.
>
> I also wonder how could the commit above start causing this? Well, it
> might make it happen more likely due to more of EAGAINs.
Yes, as far as I can see right now, this is not related to tty changes,
but to non-clear locking policy between
DEBUG_OBJECTS_FREE hash bucket lock <-> uart's port->mutex.
As far as I remember WARN() prints can't be deferred and it makes sense
to have WARN() in debug objects.
I see probably fast and quite simple solution: to copy debug object's
state on stack and call debug_print_object() without bucket lock...
But not sure how straight-forward is this. I mean if speaking from
lib/debugobjects perspective.
I'll prepare a patch for that as it seems the easiest way (I haven't
looked long yet, though).
+Cc: Sergey, Petr, Steven - with their console_unlock()/printk() and
deferring expertise they probably have more brighter ideas.
>> [ 87.218483] -> #2 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}:
>> [ 87.219282] lock_acquire+0x28c/0x2e7
>> [ 87.219901] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x35/0x49
>> [ 87.220601] serial8250_console_write+0x110/0x5b5
>> [ 87.221354] univ8250_console_write+0x5f/0x64
>> [ 87.222056] console_unlock+0x61c/0x7cf
>> [ 87.222680] register_console+0x63a/0x7b0
>> [ 87.223345] univ8250_console_init+0x1e/0x28
>> [ 87.224041] console_init+0x3be/0x57e
>> [ 87.224641] start_kernel+0x441/0x6c6
>> [ 87.225246] x86_64_start_reservations+0x29/0x2b
>> [ 87.225979] x86_64_start_kernel+0x6f/0x72
>> [ 87.226637] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
>> [ 87.227314]
>> [ 87.227314] -> #1 (console_owner){-...}:
>> [ 87.228127] lock_acquire+0x28c/0x2e7
>> [ 87.228728] console_unlock+0x424/0x7cf
>> [ 87.229363] vprintk_emit+0x22d/0x252
>> [ 87.229969] vprintk_default+0x18/0x1a
>> [ 87.230576] vprintk_func+0xa9/0xab
>> [ 87.231156] printk+0x97/0xbe
>> [ 87.231659] __debug_object_init+0x8db/0x92d
>> [ 87.232349] debug_object_init+0x14/0x17
>> [ 87.232987] __init_work+0x1b/0x1d
>> [ 87.233551] rhashtable_init+0x53b/0x602
>> [ 87.234192] rhltable_init+0xe/0x41
>> [ 87.234772] test_insert_dup+0xac/0xa94
>> [ 87.235467] test_rht_init+0x387/0x79c
>> [ 87.236222] do_one_initcall+0x23c/0x4af
>> [ 87.236869] kernel_init_freeable+0x5ec/0x69f
>> [ 87.237855] kernel_init+0xc/0x100
>> [ 87.238470] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>> [ 87.239071]
>> [ 87.239071] -> #0 (&obj_hash[i].lock){-.-.}:
>> [ 87.239904] __lock_acquire+0x1f78/0x22d1
>> [ 87.240556] lock_acquire+0x28c/0x2e7
>> [ 87.241173] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x35/0x49
>> [ 87.241882] debug_check_no_obj_freed+0xb4/0x302
>> [ 87.242620] free_unref_page_prepare+0x33a/0x483
>> [ 87.243368] free_unref_page+0x48/0x80
>> [ 87.243991] __free_pages+0x2e/0x40
>> [ 87.244611] free_pages+0x54/0x5a
>> [ 87.245188] uart_shutdown+0x3df/0x4e2
>> [ 87.245817] uart_hangup+0x123/0x280
>> [ 87.246406] __tty_hangup+0x4da/0x50f
>> [ 87.247025] tty_vhangup_session+0xe/0x10
>> [ 87.247680] disassociate_ctty+0xeb/0x5c5
>> [ 87.248349] do_exit+0xc97/0x1daf
>> [ 87.248920] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x0/0x3e
>> [ 87.249587] __wake_up_parent+0x0/0x52
>> [ 87.250211] do_syscall_64+0x5e8/0x881
>> [ 87.250839] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>> [ 87.251637]
>> [ 87.251637] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 87.251637]
>> [ 87.252790] Chain exists of:
>> [ 87.252790] &obj_hash[i].lock --> console_owner --> &port_lock_key
>> [ 87.252790]
>> [ 87.254307] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 87.254307]
>> [ 87.255156] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 87.255813] ---- ----
>> [ 87.256460] lock(&port_lock_key);
>> [ 87.256973] lock(console_owner);
>> [ 87.257829] lock(&port_lock_key);
>> [ 87.258680] lock(&obj_hash[i].lock);
>> [ 87.259223]
>> [ 87.259223] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 87.259223]
>> [ 87.260067] 3 locks held by getty/519:
>> [ 87.260605] #0: (____ptrval____) (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.}, at: tty_lock+0x5c/0x68
>> [ 87.261717] #1: (____ptrval____) (&port->mutex){+.+.}, at: uart_hangup+0x4b/0x280
>> [ 87.262795] #2: (____ptrval____) (&port_lock_key){-.-.}, at: uart_shutdown+0x3a3/0x4e2
>> [ 87.263974]
>> [ 87.263974] stack backtrace:
>> [ 87.264631] CPU: 0 PID: 519 Comm: getty Tainted: G W 4.20.0-rc4-00057-gc96cf92 #1
>> [ 87.265893] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
>> [ 87.267082] Call Trace:
>> [ 87.267451] dump_stack+0x86/0xc3
>> [ 87.267942] print_circular_bug+0x4a8/0x4b9
>> [ 87.268635] check_prevs_add+0x466/0x109c
>> [ 87.269230] ? quarantine_put+0x114/0x135
>> [ 87.269821] ? quarantine_put+0x114/0x135
>> [ 87.270399] ? serial_do_unlink+0x266/0x272
>> [ 87.271009] ? print_circular_bug_header+0x122/0x122
>> [ 87.271722] ? __kasan_slab_free+0x1e8/0x1fd
>> [ 87.272341] ? __kasan_slab_free+0x153/0x1fd
Thanks,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists