[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1906280928410.17146@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:32:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Erdfelt <johannes@...felt.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: Remove possible deadlock between register_kprobe()
and ftrace_run_update_code()
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Petr Mladek wrote:
> The commit 9f255b632bf12c4dd7 ("module: Fix livepatch/ftrace module text
> permissions race") causes a possible deadlock between register_kprobe()
> and ftrace_run_update_code() when ftrace is using stop_machine().
>
> The existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (text_mutex){+.+.}:
> validate_chain.isra.21+0xb32/0xd70
> __lock_acquire+0x4b8/0x928
> lock_acquire+0x102/0x230
> __mutex_lock+0x88/0x908
> mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40
> register_kprobe+0x254/0x658
> init_kprobes+0x11a/0x168
> do_one_initcall+0x70/0x318
> kernel_init_freeable+0x456/0x508
> kernel_init+0x22/0x150
> ret_from_fork+0x30/0x34
> kernel_thread_starter+0x0/0xc
>
> -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
> check_prev_add+0x90c/0xde0
> validate_chain.isra.21+0xb32/0xd70
> __lock_acquire+0x4b8/0x928
> lock_acquire+0x102/0x230
> cpus_read_lock+0x62/0xd0
> stop_machine+0x2e/0x60
> arch_ftrace_update_code+0x2e/0x40
> ftrace_run_update_code+0x40/0xa0
> ftrace_startup+0xb2/0x168
> register_ftrace_function+0x64/0x88
> klp_patch_object+0x1a2/0x290
> klp_enable_patch+0x554/0x980
> do_one_initcall+0x70/0x318
> do_init_module+0x6e/0x250
> load_module+0x1782/0x1990
> __s390x_sys_finit_module+0xaa/0xf0
> system_call+0xd8/0x2d0
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(text_mutex);
> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> lock(text_mutex);
> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>
> It is similar problem that has been solved by the commit 2d1e38f56622b9b
> ("kprobes: Cure hotplug lock ordering issues"). Many locks are involved.
> To be on the safe side, text_mutex must become a low level lock taken
> after cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem.
>
> This can't be achieved easily with the current ftrace design.
> For example, arm calls set_all_modules_text_rw() already in
> ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare(), see arch/arm/kernel/ftrace.c.
> This functions is called:
>
> + outside stop_machine() from ftrace_run_update_code()
> + without stop_machine() from ftrace_module_enable()
>
> Fortunately, the problematic fix is needed only on x86_64. It is
> the only architecture that calls set_all_modules_text_rw()
> in ftrace path and supports livepatching at the same time.
>
> Therefore it is enough to move text_mutex handling from the generic
> kernel/trace/ftrace.c into arch/x86/kernel/ftrace.c:
>
> ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare()
> ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process()
>
> This patch basically reverts the ftrace part of the problematic
> commit 9f255b632bf12c4dd7 ("module: Fix livepatch/ftrace module
> text permissions race"). And provides x86_64 specific-fix.
>
> Some refactoring of the ftrace code will be needed when livepatching
> is implemented for arm or nds32. These architectures call
> set_all_modules_text_rw() and use stop_machine() at the same time.
>
> Fixes: 9f255b632bf12c4dd7 ("module: Fix livepatch/ftrace module text permissions race")
> Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Reported-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index 38277af44f5c..d3034a4a3fcc 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@
> #include <linux/hash.h>
> #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> -#include <linux/memory.h>
>
> #include <trace/events/sched.h>
>
> @@ -2611,12 +2610,10 @@ static void ftrace_run_update_code(int command)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
> -
> ret = ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare();
> FTRACE_WARN_ON(ret);
> if (ret)
> - goto out_unlock;
> + return ret;
Should be just "return;", because the function is "static void".
With that
Reviewed-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists