linux-kernel - Re: possible deadlock in send

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

Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:40:46 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, allison@...utok.net,
        areber@...hat.com, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, cyphar@...har.com,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, guro@...com,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, sargun@...gun.me,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in send_sigio

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 01:13:51PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/15/20 12:49 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:01:01PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > On the archs using QUEUED_RWLOCKS, read_lock() is not always a recursive
> > > read lock, actually it's only recursive if in_interrupt() is true. So
> > > change the annotation accordingly to catch more deadlocks.
> > [...]
> > 
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > +/*
> > > + * read_lock() is recursive if:
> > > + * 1. We force lockdep think this way in selftests or
> > > + * 2. The implementation is not queued read/write lock or
> > > + * 3. The locker is at an in_interrupt() context.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool read_lock_is_recursive(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	return force_read_lock_recursive ||
> > > +	       !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS) ||
> > > +	       in_interrupt();
> > > +}
> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with having the _lockdep_ definition of whether
> > a read lock is recursive depend on what the _implementation_ is.
> > The locking semantics should be the same, no matter which architecture
> > you're running on.  If we rely on read locks being recursive in common
> > code then we have a locking bug on architectures which don't use queued
> > rwlocks.
> > 
> > I don't know whether we should just tell the people who aren't using
> > queued rwlocks that they have a new requirement or whether we should
> > say that read locks are never recursive, but having this inconsistency
> > is not a good idea!
> 
> Actually, qrwlock is more restrictive. It is possible that systems with
> qrwlock may hit deadlock which doesn't happens in other systems that use
> recursive rwlock. However, the current lockdep code doesn't detect those
> cases.

Oops.  I misread.  Still, my point stands; we should have the same
definition of how you're allowed to use locks from the lockdep point of
view, even if the underlying implementation won't deadlock on a particular
usage model.


So I'd be happy with:

+	return lockdep_pretend_in_interrupt || in_interrupt();

to allow the test-suite to test that it works as expected, without
actually disabling interrupts while the testsuite runs.