[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200501131556.737155505@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 15:22:13 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+e27980339d305f2dbfd9@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 097/117] mm: shmem: disable interrupt when acquiring info->lock in userfaultfd_copy path
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
commit 94b7cc01da5a3cc4f3da5e0ff492ef008bb555d6 upstream.
Syzbot reported the below lockdep splat:
WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
5.6.0-rc7-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor.0/10317 just changed the state of lock:
ffff888021d16568 (&(&info->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
ffff888021d16568 (&(&info->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: shmem_mfill_atomic_pte+0x1012/0x21c0 mm/shmem.c:2407
but this lock was taken by another, SOFTIRQ-safe lock in the past:
(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5){..-.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&info->lock)->rlock);
local_irq_disable();
lock(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5);
lock(&(&info->lock)->rlock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5);
*** DEADLOCK ***
The full report is quite lengthy, please see:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/alpine.LSU.2.11.2004152007370.13597@eggly.anvils/T/#m813b412c5f78e25ca8c6c7734886ed4de43f241d
It is because CPU 0 held info->lock with IRQ enabled in userfaultfd_copy
path, then CPU 1 is splitting a THP which held xa_lock and info->lock in
IRQ disabled context at the same time. If softirq comes in to acquire
xa_lock, the deadlock would be triggered.
The fix is to acquire/release info->lock with *_irq version instead of
plain spin_{lock,unlock} to make it softirq safe.
Fixes: 4c27fe4c4c84 ("userfaultfd: shmem: add shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte for userfaultfd support")
Reported-by: syzbot+e27980339d305f2dbfd9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Tested-by: syzbot+e27980339d305f2dbfd9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1587061357-122619-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
mm/shmem.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -2330,11 +2330,11 @@ static int shmem_mfill_atomic_pte(struct
lru_cache_add_anon(page);
- spin_lock(&info->lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&info->lock);
info->alloced++;
inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE;
shmem_recalc_inode(inode);
- spin_unlock(&info->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&info->lock);
inc_mm_counter(dst_mm, mm_counter_file(page));
page_add_file_rmap(page, false);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists