linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in modeset

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]

Message-ID: <20201218111031.226f8b59@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:10:31 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+972b924c988834e868b2@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in modeset_lock

On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:03:20 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:

> I think we're tripping over the might_sleep() all the mutexes have,
> and that's not as good as yours, but good enough to catch a missing
> rcu_read_unlock(). That's kinda why I'm baffled, since like almost
> every 2nd function in the backtrace grabbed a mutex and it was all
> fine until the very last.
> 
> I think it would be really nice if the rcu checks could retain (in
> debugging only) the backtrace of the outermost rcu_read_lock, so we
> could print that when something goes wrong in cases where it's leaked.
> For normal locks lockdep does that already (well not full backtrace I
> think, just the function that acquired the lock, but that's often
> enough). I guess that doesn't exist yet?
> 
> Also yes without reproducer this is kinda tough nut to crack.

I'm looking at drm_client_modeset_commit_atomic(), where it triggered after
the "retry:" label, which to get to, does a bit of goto spaghetti, with
a -EDEADLK detected and a goto backoff, which calls goto retry, and then
the next mutex taken is the one that triggers the bug.

As this is hard to reproduce, but reproducible by a fuzzer, I'm guessing
there's some error return path somewhere in there that doesn't release an
rcu_read_lock().

-- Steve