| 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: <X9CheYjuXWc75Spa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:05:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] 5.9-rt14 softirq_ctrl.lock vs listening_hash[i].lock
lockdep splat
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 06:31:57AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> [ 47.844511] ======================================================
> [ 47.844511] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 47.844512] 5.9.0.gc85fb28-rt14-rt #1 Tainted: G E
> [ 47.844513] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 47.844514] perl/2751 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 47.844515] ffff92cadec5a410 ((softirq_ctrl.lock).lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: __local_bh_disable_ip+0x127/0x2c0
> [ 47.844521]
> but task is already holding lock:
> [ 47.844522] ffffffffa8871468 (&h->listening_hash[i].lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: listening_get_next.isra.41+0xd7/0x130
> [ 47.844528]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> [ 47.844528]
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 47.844529]
> -> #1 (&h->listening_hash[i].lock){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> [ 47.844532] rt_spin_lock+0x2b/0xc0
> [ 47.844536] __inet_hash+0x68/0x320
> [ 47.844539] inet_hash+0x31/0x60
> [ 47.844541] inet_csk_listen_start+0xaf/0xe0
> [ 47.844543] inet_listen+0x86/0x150
> [ 47.844546] __sys_listen+0x58/0x80
> [ 47.844548] __x64_sys_listen+0x12/0x20
> [ 47.844549] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> [ 47.844552] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 47.844555]
> -> #0 ((softirq_ctrl.lock).lock){+.+.}-{2:2}:
> [ 47.844557] __lock_acquire+0x1343/0x1890
> [ 47.844560] lock_acquire+0x92/0x410
> [ 47.844562] rt_spin_lock+0x2b/0xc0
> [ 47.844564] __local_bh_disable_ip+0x127/0x2c0
> [ 47.844566] sock_i_ino+0x22/0x60
> [ 47.844569] tcp4_seq_show+0x14f/0x420
> [ 47.844571] seq_read+0x27c/0x420
> [ 47.844574] proc_reg_read+0x5c/0x80
> [ 47.844576] vfs_read+0xd1/0x1d0
> [ 47.844580] ksys_read+0x87/0xc0
> [ 47.844581] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> [ 47.844583] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 47.844585]
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 47.844585] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 47.844586] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 47.844586] ---- ----
> [ 47.844587] lock(&h->listening_hash[i].lock);
> [ 47.844588] lock((softirq_ctrl.lock).lock);
> [ 47.844588] lock(&h->listening_hash[i].lock);
> [ 47.844589] lock((softirq_ctrl.lock).lock);
> [ 47.844590]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> [ 47.844590] 3 locks held by perl/2751:
> [ 47.844591] #0: ffff92ca6525a4e0 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: seq_read+0x37/0x420
> [ 47.844594] #1: ffffffffa8871468 (&h->listening_hash[i].lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: listening_get_next.isra.41+0xd7/0x130
> [ 47.844597] #2: ffffffffa74b90e0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rt_spin_lock+0x5/0xc0
> [ 47.844600]
> stack backtrace:
> [ 47.844601] CPU: 1 PID: 2751 Comm: perl Kdump: loaded Tainted: G E 5.9.0.gc85fb28-rt14-rt #1
> [ 47.844603] Hardware name: MEDION MS-7848/MS-7848, BIOS M7848W08.20C 09/23/2013
> [ 47.844604] Call Trace:
> [ 47.844606] dump_stack+0x77/0x9b
> [ 47.844611] check_noncircular+0x148/0x160
> [ 47.844616] ? __lock_acquire+0x1343/0x1890
> [ 47.844617] __lock_acquire+0x1343/0x1890
> [ 47.844621] lock_acquire+0x92/0x410
> [ 47.844623] ? __local_bh_disable_ip+0x127/0x2c0
> [ 47.844626] ? sock_i_ino+0x5/0x60
> [ 47.844628] rt_spin_lock+0x2b/0xc0
> [ 47.844630] ? __local_bh_disable_ip+0x127/0x2c0
> [ 47.844631] __local_bh_disable_ip+0x127/0x2c0
> [ 47.844634] sock_i_ino+0x22/0x60
> [ 47.844635] tcp4_seq_show+0x14f/0x420
> [ 47.844640] seq_read+0x27c/0x420
> [ 47.844643] proc_reg_read+0x5c/0x80
> [ 47.844645] vfs_read+0xd1/0x1d0
> [ 47.844648] ksys_read+0x87/0xc0
> [ 47.844649] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x78/0x100
> [ 47.844652] do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
> [ 47.844654] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 47.844656] RIP: 0033:0x7fb3f3c23e51
> [ 47.844658] Code: 7d 81 20 00 f7 d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb ba 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 8b 05 1a c3 20 00 48 63 ff 85 c0 75 13 31 c0 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 57 f3 c3 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 53 48 89 d5 48 89
> [ 47.844660] RSP: 002b:00007ffd7604f108 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000000
> [ 47.844661] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007fb3f3c23e51
> [ 47.844662] RDX: 0000000000002000 RSI: 000055dbff4da600 RDI: 0000000000000003
> [ 47.844662] RBP: 0000000000002000 R08: 000055dbff4d9290 R09: 000055dbff4da600
> [ 47.844663] R10: ffffffffffffffb0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000055dbff4da600
> [ 47.844664] R13: 000055dbff4ae260 R14: 000055dbff4d92c0 R15: 0000000000000003
So I've been looking at these local_lock vs lockdep splats for a bit,
and unlike the IRQ inversions as reported here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20201029174348.omqiwjqy64tebg5z@linutronix.de/
I think the above is an actual real problem (for RT).
AFAICT the above translates to:
inet_listen()
lock_sock()
spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
acquire(softirq_ctrl);
acquire(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
inet_csk_listen_start()
sk->sk_prot->hash() := inet_hash()
local_bh_disable()
__inet_hash()
spin_lock(&ilb->lock);
acquire(&ilb->lock);
----
tcp4_seq_next()
listening_get_next()
spin_lock(&ilb->lock);
acquire(&ilb->lock);
tcp4_seq_show()
get_tcp4_sock()
sock_i_ino()
read_lock_bh(&sk->sk_callback_lock);
acquire(softirq_ctrl) // <---- whoops
acquire(&sk->sk_callback_lock)
Which you can run in two tasks on the same CPU (and thus get the same
softirq_ctrl local_lock), and deadlock.
By holding softirq_ctrl we serialize against softirq-context
(in-softirq) but that isn't relevant here, since neither context is
that.
On !RT there isn't a problem because softirq_ctrl isn't an actual lock,
but the moment that turns into a real lock (like on RT) you're up a
creek.
In general we have the rule that as long as a lock is only ever used
from task context (like the above ilb->lock, afaict) then it doesn't
matter if you also take it with (soft)irqs disabled or not. But this
softirq scheme breaks that. If you ever take a lock with BH disabled,
you must now always take it with BH disabled, otherwise you risk
deadlocks against the softirq_ctrl lock.
Or am I missing something obvious (again) ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists