| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2019 13:42:00 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.2 64/94] kprobes: Fix potential deadlock in kprobe_optimizer()
[ Upstream commit f1c6ece23729257fb46562ff9224cf5f61b818da ]
lockdep reports the following deadlock scenario:
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
kworker/1:1/48 is trying to acquire lock:
000000008d7a62b2 (text_mutex){+.+.}, at: kprobe_optimizer+0x163/0x290
but task is already holding lock:
00000000850b5e2d (module_mutex){+.+.}, at: kprobe_optimizer+0x31/0x290
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (module_mutex){+.+.}:
__mutex_lock+0xac/0x9f0
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
set_all_modules_text_rw+0x22/0x90
ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare+0x1c/0x20
ftrace_run_update_code+0xe/0x30
ftrace_startup_enable+0x2e/0x50
ftrace_startup+0xa7/0x100
register_ftrace_function+0x27/0x70
arm_kprobe+0xb3/0x130
enable_kprobe+0x83/0xa0
enable_trace_kprobe.part.0+0x2e/0x80
kprobe_register+0x6f/0xc0
perf_trace_event_init+0x16b/0x270
perf_kprobe_init+0xa7/0xe0
perf_kprobe_event_init+0x3e/0x70
perf_try_init_event+0x4a/0x140
perf_event_alloc+0x93a/0xde0
__do_sys_perf_event_open+0x19f/0xf30
__x64_sys_perf_event_open+0x20/0x30
do_syscall_64+0x65/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
-> #0 (text_mutex){+.+.}:
__lock_acquire+0xfcb/0x1b60
lock_acquire+0xca/0x1d0
__mutex_lock+0xac/0x9f0
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
kprobe_optimizer+0x163/0x290
process_one_work+0x22b/0x560
worker_thread+0x50/0x3c0
kthread+0x112/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(module_mutex);
lock(text_mutex);
lock(module_mutex);
lock(text_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
As a reproducer I've been using bcc's funccount.py
(https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/funccount.py),
for example:
# ./funccount.py '*interrupt*'
That immediately triggers the lockdep splat.
Fix by acquiring text_mutex before module_mutex in kprobe_optimizer().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Fixes: d5b844a2cf50 ("ftrace/x86: Remove possible deadlock between register_kprobe() and ftrace_run_update_code()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190812184302.GA7010@xps-13
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
kernel/kprobes.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index 445337c107e0f..2504c269e6583 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(optimizing_work, kprobe_optimizer);
*/
static void do_optimize_kprobes(void)
{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
/*
* The optimization/unoptimization refers online_cpus via
* stop_machine() and cpu-hotplug modifies online_cpus.
@@ -487,9 +488,7 @@ static void do_optimize_kprobes(void)
list_empty(&optimizing_list))
return;
- mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
arch_optimize_kprobes(&optimizing_list);
- mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
}
/*
@@ -500,6 +499,7 @@ static void do_unoptimize_kprobes(void)
{
struct optimized_kprobe *op, *tmp;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
/* See comment in do_optimize_kprobes() */
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
@@ -507,7 +507,6 @@ static void do_unoptimize_kprobes(void)
if (list_empty(&unoptimizing_list))
return;
- mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
arch_unoptimize_kprobes(&unoptimizing_list, &freeing_list);
/* Loop free_list for disarming */
list_for_each_entry_safe(op, tmp, &freeing_list, list) {
@@ -524,7 +523,6 @@ static void do_unoptimize_kprobes(void)
} else
list_del_init(&op->list);
}
- mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
}
/* Reclaim all kprobes on the free_list */
@@ -556,6 +554,7 @@ static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
{
mutex_lock(&kprobe_mutex);
cpus_read_lock();
+ mutex_lock(&text_mutex);
/* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */
mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
@@ -583,6 +582,7 @@ static void kprobe_optimizer(struct work_struct *work)
do_free_cleaned_kprobes();
mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&text_mutex);
cpus_read_unlock();
mutex_unlock(&kprobe_mutex);
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists