linux-kernel - Re: possible deadlock in sk_clone

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: <YD0OzXTmYm8M58Vo@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 16:57:01 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+506c8a2a115201881d45@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in sk_clone_lock

On Mon 01-03-21 07:10:11, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:12 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 26-02-21 16:00:30, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 3:14 PM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Michal
> > > >
> > > > On 2/26/21 2:44 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 2:09 PM syzbot
> > > > > <syzbot+506c8a2a115201881d45@...kaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >> other info that might help us debug this:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>        CPU0                    CPU1
> > > > >>        ----                    ----
> > > > >>   lock(hugetlb_lock);
> > > > >>                                local_irq_disable();
> > > > >>                                lock(slock-AF_INET);
> > > > >>                                lock(hugetlb_lock);
> > > > >>   <Interrupt>
> > > > >>     lock(slock-AF_INET);
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been reproduced on 4.19 stable kernel as well [1] and there
> > > > > is a reproducer as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems like sendmsg(MSG_ZEROCOPY) from a buffer backed by hugetlb. I
> > > > > wonder if we just need to make hugetlb_lock softirq-safe.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=6383ce4b0b8ec575ad93
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Shakeel,
> > > >
> > > > Commit c77c0a8ac4c5 ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in non-task
> > > > context") attempted to address this issue.  It uses a work queue to
> > > > acquire hugetlb_lock if the caller is !in_task().
> > > >
> > > > In another recent thread, there was the suggestion to change the
> > > > !in_task to in_atomic.
> > > >
> > > > I need to do some research on the subtle differences between in_task,
> > > > in_atomic, etc.  TBH, I 'thought' !in_task would prevent the issue
> > > > reported here.  But, that obviously is not the case.
> > >
> > > I think the freeing is happening in the process context in this report
> > > but it is creating the lock chain from softirq-safe slock to
> > > irq-unsafe hugetlb_lock. So, two solutions I can think of are: (1)
> > > always defer the freeing of hugetlb pages to a work queue or (2) make
> > > hugetlb_lock softirq-safe.
> >
> > There is __do_softirq so this should be in the soft IRQ context no?
> > Is this really reproducible with kernels which have c77c0a8ac4c5
> > applied?
> 
> Yes this is softirq context and syzbot has reproduced this on
> linux-next 20210224.

Then how come this can ever be a problem? in_task() should exclude soft
irq context unless I am mistaken.
 
> > Btw. making hugetlb lock irq safe has been already discussed and it
> > seems to be much harder than expected as some heavy operations are done
> > under the lock. This is really bad.
> 
> What about just softirq-safe i.e. spin_[un]lock_bh()? Will it still be that bad?

This would be a similar problem to the irq variant. It would just result
in soft irq being delayed potentially.

> > Postponing the whole freeing
> > operation into a worker context is certainly possible but I would
> > consider it rather unfortunate. We would have to add some sync mechanism
> > to wait for hugetlb pages in flight to prevent from external
> > observability to the userspace. E.g. when shrinking the pool.
> 
> I think in practice recycling of hugetlb pages is a rare event, so we
> might get away without the sync mechanism. How about start postponing
> the freeing without sync mechanism and add it later if there are any
> user reports complaining?

I think this should be a last resort. Maybe we can come up with
something better. E.g. break down the hugetlb_lock and use something
different for expensive operations.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs