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  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]
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:00:53 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.1 052/219] locking/lockdep: Fix OOO unlock when hlocks need merging

From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>

[ Upstream commit 8c8889d8eaf4501ae4aaf870b6f8f55db5d5109a ]

The sequence

	static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(test_ww_class);

	struct ww_acquire_ctx ww_ctx;
	struct ww_mutex ww_lock_a;
	struct ww_mutex ww_lock_b;
	struct mutex lock_c;
	struct mutex lock_d;

	ww_acquire_init(&ww_ctx, &test_ww_class);

	ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_a, &test_ww_class);
	ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_b, &test_ww_class);

	mutex_init(&lock_c);

	ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_a, &ww_ctx);

	mutex_lock(&lock_c);

	ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_b, &ww_ctx);

	mutex_unlock(&lock_c);		(*)

	ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_b);
	ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_a);

	ww_acquire_fini(&ww_ctx);

triggers the following WARN in __lock_release() when doing the unlock at *:

	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1);

The problem is that the WARN check doesn't take into account the merging
of ww_lock_a and ww_lock_b which results in decreasing curr->lockdep_depth
by 2 not only 1.

Note that the following sequence doesn't trigger the WARN, since there
won't be any hlock merging.

	ww_acquire_init(&ww_ctx, &test_ww_class);

	ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_a, &test_ww_class);
	ww_mutex_init(&ww_lock_b, &test_ww_class);

	mutex_init(&lock_c);
	mutex_init(&lock_d);

	ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_a, &ww_ctx);

	mutex_lock(&lock_c);
	mutex_lock(&lock_d);

	ww_mutex_lock(&ww_lock_b, &ww_ctx);

	mutex_unlock(&lock_d);

	ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_b);
	ww_mutex_unlock(&ww_lock_a);

	mutex_unlock(&lock_c);

	ww_acquire_fini(&ww_ctx);

In general both of the above two sequences are valid and shouldn't
trigger any lockdep warning.

Fix this by taking the decrement due to the hlock merging into account
during lock release and hlock class re-setting. Merging can't happen
during lock downgrading since there won't be a new possibility to merge
hlocks in that case, so add a WARN if merging still happens then.

Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190524201509.9199-1-imre.deak@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index e221be724fe8..2ecc12cd11d0 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3623,7 +3623,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
 				hlock->references = 2;
 			}
 
-			return 1;
+			return 2;
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -3829,22 +3829,33 @@ static struct held_lock *find_held_lock(struct task_struct *curr,
 }
 
 static int reacquire_held_locks(struct task_struct *curr, unsigned int depth,
-			      int idx)
+				int idx, unsigned int *merged)
 {
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
+	int first_idx = idx;
 
 	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
 		return 0;
 
 	for (hlock = curr->held_locks + idx; idx < depth; idx++, hlock++) {
-		if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
+		switch (__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
 				    hlock_class(hlock)->subclass,
 				    hlock->trylock,
 				    hlock->read, hlock->check,
 				    hlock->hardirqs_off,
 				    hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip,
-				    hlock->references, hlock->pin_count))
+				    hlock->references, hlock->pin_count)) {
+		case 0:
 			return 1;
+		case 1:
+			break;
+		case 2:
+			*merged += (idx == first_idx);
+			break;
+		default:
+			WARN_ON(1);
+			return 0;
+		}
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -3855,9 +3866,9 @@ __lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
 		 unsigned long ip)
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	unsigned int depth, merged = 0;
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
 	struct lock_class *class;
-	unsigned int depth;
 	int i;
 
 	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
@@ -3882,14 +3893,14 @@ __lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
 	curr->lockdep_depth = i;
 	curr->curr_chain_key = hlock->prev_chain_key;
 
-	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i))
+	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i, &merged))
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * I took it apart and put it back together again, except now I have
 	 * these 'spare' parts.. where shall I put them.
 	 */
-	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth))
+	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - merged))
 		return 0;
 	return 1;
 }
@@ -3897,8 +3908,8 @@ __lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
 static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	unsigned int depth, merged = 0;
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
-	unsigned int depth;
 	int i;
 
 	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
@@ -3923,7 +3934,11 @@ static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
 	hlock->read = 1;
 	hlock->acquire_ip = ip;
 
-	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i))
+	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i, &merged))
+		return 0;
+
+	/* Merging can't happen with unchanged classes.. */
+	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(merged))
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
@@ -3932,6 +3947,7 @@ static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
 	 */
 	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth))
 		return 0;
+
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -3946,8 +3962,8 @@ static int
 __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	unsigned int depth, merged = 1;
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
-	unsigned int depth;
 	int i;
 
 	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
@@ -4002,14 +4018,15 @@ __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 	if (i == depth-1)
 		return 1;
 
-	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i + 1))
+	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i + 1, &merged))
 		return 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * We had N bottles of beer on the wall, we drank one, but now
 	 * there's not N-1 bottles of beer left on the wall...
+	 * Pouring two of the bottles together is acceptable.
 	 */
-	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth-1);
+	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - merged);
 
 	/*
 	 * Since reacquire_held_locks() would have called check_chain_key()
-- 
2.20.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists