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  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:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:07:37 +0200
From:   Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] regulator: push allocation in regulator_init_coupling()
 outside of lock

Allocating memory with regulator_list_mutex held makes lockdep unhappy
when memory pressure makes the system do fs_reclaim on eg. eMMC using
a regulator. Push the lock inside regulator_init_coupling() after the
allocation.

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.7.13+ #533 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/383 is trying to acquire lock:
cca78ca4 (&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: __submit_merged_write_cond+0x104/0x154
but task is already holding lock:
c0e38518 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x50
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
       fs_reclaim_acquire.part.11+0x40/0x50
       fs_reclaim_acquire+0x24/0x28
       __kmalloc+0x54/0x218
       regulator_register+0x860/0x1584
       dummy_regulator_probe+0x60/0xa8
[...]
other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  &sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem --> regulator_list_mutex --> fs_reclaim

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(fs_reclaim);
                               lock(regulator_list_mutex);
                               lock(fs_reclaim);
  lock(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem);
 *** DEADLOCK ***

1 lock held by kswapd0/383:
 #0: c0e38518 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x50
[...]

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: d8ca7d184b33 ("regulator: core: Introduce API for regulators coupling customization")
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 0a32c3da0e26..510d234f6c46 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -5010,7 +5010,10 @@ static int regulator_init_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 	if (!of_check_coupling_data(rdev))
 		return -EPERM;
 
+	mutex_lock(&regulator_list_mutex);
 	rdev->coupling_desc.coupler = regulator_find_coupler(rdev);
+	mutex_unlock(&regulator_list_mutex);
+
 	if (IS_ERR(rdev->coupling_desc.coupler)) {
 		err = PTR_ERR(rdev->coupling_desc.coupler);
 		rdev_err(rdev, "failed to get coupler: %d\n", err);
@@ -5218,9 +5221,7 @@ regulator_register(const struct regulator_desc *regulator_desc,
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto wash;
 
-	mutex_lock(&regulator_list_mutex);
 	ret = regulator_init_coupling(rdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&regulator_list_mutex);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto wash;
 
-- 
2.20.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists