| 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: <41f673cb-9605-7663-925d-9cafd1c2f588@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:57:11 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat
On 10.01.20 17:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 10.01.20 17:42, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 1:10 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10.01.20 05:30, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> The daxctl unit test for the dax_kmem driver currently triggers the
>>>> lockdep splat below. It results from the fact that
>>>> remove_memory_block_devices() is invoked under the mem_hotplug_lock()
>>>> causing lockdep entanglements with cpu_hotplug_lock().
>>>>
>>>> The mem_hotplug_lock() is not needed to synchronize the memory block
>>>> device sysfs interface vs the page online state, that is already handled
>>>> by lock_device_hotplug(). Specifically lock_device_hotplug()
>>>> is sufficient to allow try_remove_memory() to check the offline
>>>> state of the memblocks and be assured that subsequent online attempts
>>>> will be blocked. The device_online() path checks mem->section_count
>>>> before allowing any state manipulations and mem->section_count is
>>>> cleared in remove_memory_block_devices().
>>>>
>>>> The add_memory() path does create memblock devices under the lock, but
>>>> there is no lockdep report on that path, so it is left alone for now.
>>>>
>>>> This change is only possible thanks to the recent change that refactored
>>>> memory block device removal out of arch_remove_memory() (commit
>>>> 4c4b7f9ba948 mm/memory_hotplug: remove memory block devices before
>>>> arch_remove_memory()).
>>>>
>>>> ======================================================
>>>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>>> 5.5.0-rc3+ #230 Tainted: G OE
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> lt-daxctl/6459 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>> ffff99c7f0003510 (kn->count#241){++++}, at: kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x41/0x80
>>>>
>>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>>> ffffffffa76a5450 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: percpu_down_write+0x20/0xe0
>>>>
>>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>>>
>>>> -> #2 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
>>>> __lock_acquire+0x39c/0x790
>>>> lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1b0
>>>> get_online_mems+0x3e/0xb0
>>>> kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x2e/0x260
>>>> kmem_cache_create+0x12/0x20
>>>> ptlock_cache_init+0x20/0x28
>>>> start_kernel+0x243/0x547
>>>> secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0
>>>>
>>>> -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
>>>> __lock_acquire+0x39c/0x790
>>>> lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1b0
>>>> cpus_read_lock+0x3e/0xb0
>>>> online_pages+0x37/0x300
>>>> memory_subsys_online+0x17d/0x1c0
>>>> device_online+0x60/0x80
>>>> state_store+0x65/0xd0
>>>> kernfs_fop_write+0xcf/0x1c0
>>>> vfs_write+0xdb/0x1d0
>>>> ksys_write+0x65/0xe0
>>>> do_syscall_64+0x5c/0xa0
>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>>>
>>>> -> #0 (kn->count#241){++++}:
>>>> check_prev_add+0x98/0xa40
>>>> validate_chain+0x576/0x860
>>>> __lock_acquire+0x39c/0x790
>>>> lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1b0
>>>> __kernfs_remove+0x25f/0x2e0
>>>> kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x41/0x80
>>>> remove_files.isra.0+0x30/0x70
>>>> sysfs_remove_group+0x3d/0x80
>>>> sysfs_remove_groups+0x29/0x40
>>>> device_remove_attrs+0x39/0x70
>>>> device_del+0x16a/0x3f0
>>>> device_unregister+0x16/0x60
>>>> remove_memory_block_devices+0x82/0xb0
>>>> try_remove_memory+0xb5/0x130
>>>> remove_memory+0x26/0x40
>>>> dev_dax_kmem_remove+0x44/0x6a [kmem]
>>>> device_release_driver_internal+0xe4/0x1c0
>>>> unbind_store+0xef/0x120
>>>> kernfs_fop_write+0xcf/0x1c0
>>>> vfs_write+0xdb/0x1d0
>>>> ksys_write+0x65/0xe0
>>>> do_syscall_64+0x5c/0xa0
>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>>>
>>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>>
>>>> Chain exists of:
>>>> kn->count#241 --> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem
>>>>
>>>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>>>
>>>> CPU0 CPU1
>>>> ---- ----
>>>> lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>>>> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>>>> lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>>>> lock(kn->count#241);
>>>>
>>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>>
>>>> No fixes tag as this seems to have been a long standing issue that
>>>> likely predated the addition of kernfs lockdep annotations.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
>>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 12 +++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> index 55ac23ef11c1..a4e7dadded08 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>>>> @@ -1763,8 +1763,6 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>>>
>>>> BUG_ON(check_hotplug_memory_range(start, size));
>>>>
>>>> - mem_hotplug_begin();
>>>> -
>>>> /*
>>>> * All memory blocks must be offlined before removing memory. Check
>>>> * whether all memory blocks in question are offline and return error
>>>> @@ -1777,9 +1775,17 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>>> /* remove memmap entry */
>>>> firmware_map_remove(start, start + size, "System RAM");
>>>>
>>>> - /* remove memory block devices before removing memory */
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Remove memory block devices before removing memory, and do
>>>> + * not hold the mem_hotplug_lock() over kobject removal
>>>> + * operations. lock_device_hotplug() keeps the
>>>> + * check_memblock_offlined_cb result valid until the entire
>>>> + * removal process is complete.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> Maybe shorten that to
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Remove memory block devices before removing memory. Protected
>>> * by the device_hotplug_lock only.
>>> */
>>
>> Why make someone dig for the reasons this lock is sufficient?
>
> I think 5 LOC of comment are too much for something that is documented
> e.g., in Documentation/core-api/memory-hotplug.rst ("Locking
> Internals"). But whatever you prefer.
>
>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the device hotplug lock is sufficient here. The memory hotplug
>>> lock / cpu hotplug lock is only needed when calling into arch code
>>> (especially for PPC). We hold both locks when onlining/offlining memory.
>>>
>>>> remove_memory_block_devices(start, size);
>>>>
>>>> + mem_hotplug_begin();
>>>> +
>>>> arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
>>>> memblock_free(start, size);
>>>> memblock_remove(start, size);
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd suggest to do the same in the adding part right away (if easily
>>> possible) to make it clearer.
>>
>> Let's let this fix percolate upstream for a bit to make sure there was
>> no protection the mem_hotplug_begin() was inadvertently providing.
>
> Yeah, why not.
>
>>
>>> I properly documented the semantics of
>>> add_memory_block_devices()/remove_memory_block_devices() already (that
>>> they need the device hotplug lock).
>>
>> I see that, but I prefer lockdep_assert_held() in the code rather than
>> comments. I'll send a patch to fix that up.
>
> That won't work as early boot code from ACPI won't hold it while it adds
> memory. And we decided (especially Michal :) ) to keep it like that.
>
Was only thinking about the adding part, it could work for the removal
part, though :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists