| 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: <CAPcyv4jixmv8fJ5FiYE=97Jud3Mc+6QzRX1txceSYU+WY_0rQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:24:03 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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 Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> 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.
Sure, lets beef up that doc to clarify this case and refer to it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
So then the comment is actively misleading for that case. I would
expect an explicit _unlocked path for that case with a comment about
why it's special. Is there already a comment to that effect somewhere?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists