linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 5 Oct 2019 17:44:23 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     mhocko@...nel.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
        pmladek@...e.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()

On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 20:10:47 -0400 Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:

> 
> 
> >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >> 
> >> -> #2 (&(&zone->lock)->rlock){-.-.}:
> >>       lock_acquire+0x21a/0x468
> >>       _raw_spin_lock+0x54/0x68
> >>       get_page_from_freelist+0x8b6/0x2d28
> >>       __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x246/0x658
> >>       __get_free_pages+0x34/0x78
> >>       sclp_init+0x106/0x690
> >>       sclp_register+0x2e/0x248
> >>       sclp_rw_init+0x4a/0x70
> >>       sclp_console_init+0x4a/0x1b8
> >>       console_init+0x2c8/0x410
> >>       start_kernel+0x530/0x6a0
> >>       startup_continue+0x70/0xd0
> > 
> > This appears to be the core of our problem?
> 
> No, that is just one of those many places could form the lock chain. 
> 
> console_lock -> other locks -> zone_lock
> 
> Another example is,
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1568823006.5576.178.camel@lca.pw/

There is no "console_lock".  Please be much more specific.

> It is easier to avoid,
> 
> zone_lock -> console_lock
> 
> rather than fixing the opposite.

"ease" isn't the main objective.  A more important question is "what
makes sense".  We should be able to call printk() from anywhere, any
time under any conditions.  That can't be done 100% but it is the
objective.  printk() should be robust and not being able to call
printk() while holding zone->lock isn't robust!

btw, this:

: It is unsafe to call printk() while zone->lock was held, i.e.,
:
:	zone->lock --> console_sem

doesn't make a lot of sense.  console_sem is a sleeping lock so
attempting to acquire it (with down()!) under spinlock is a huge bug. 
Again, please be careful with the descriptions.