linux-kernel - Re: 5.13-rt1 + KVM = WARNING: at fs/eventfd.c:74 eventfd

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: <475f84e2-78ee-1a24-ef57-b16c1f2651ed@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:35:27 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: 5.13-rt1 + KVM = WARNING: at fs/eventfd.c:74 eventfd_signal()

On 14/07/21 11:23, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This was added in 2020, so it's unlikely to be the direct cause of the
>> change.  What is a known-good version for the host?
>>
>> Since it is not KVM stuff, I'm CCing Michael and Jason.
> 
> I think this can be probably fixed here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210618084412.18257-1-zhe.he@windriver.com/

That seems wrong; in particular it wouldn't protect against AB/BA deadlocks.
In fact, the bug is with the locking; the code assumes that
spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore is non-preemptable and therefore
increments and decrements the percpu variable inside the critical section.

This obviously does not fly with PREEMPT_RT; the right fix should be
using a local_lock.  Something like this (untested!!):

--------------- 8< ---------------
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] eventfd: protect eventfd_wake_count with a local_lock

eventfd_signal assumes that spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore is
non-preemptable and therefore increments and decrements the percpu
variable inside the critical section.

This obviously does not fly with PREEMPT_RT.  If eventfd_signal is
preempted and an unrelated thread calls eventfd_signal, the result is
a spurious WARN.  To avoid this, protect the percpu variable with a
local_lock.

Reported-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Fixes: b5e683d5cab8 ("eventfd: track eventfd_signal() recursion depth")
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>

diff --git a/fs/eventfd.c b/fs/eventfd.c
index e265b6dd4f34..7d27b6e080ea 100644
--- a/fs/eventfd.c
+++ b/fs/eventfd.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
  #include <linux/fs.h>
  #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
  #include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/local_lock.h>
  #include <linux/slab.h>
  #include <linux/list.h>
  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
@@ -25,6 +26,7 @@
  #include <linux/idr.h>
  #include <linux/uio.h>
  
+static local_lock_t eventfd_wake_lock = INIT_LOCAL_LOCK(eventfd_wake_lock);
  DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, eventfd_wake_count);
  
  static DEFINE_IDA(eventfd_ida);
@@ -71,8 +73,11 @@ __u64 eventfd_signal(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx, __u64 n)
  	 * it returns true, the eventfd_signal() call should be deferred to a
  	 * safe context.
  	 */
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(this_cpu_read(eventfd_wake_count)))
+	local_lock(&eventfd_wake_lock);
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(this_cpu_read(eventfd_wake_count))) {
+		local_unlock(&eventfd_wake_lock);
  		return 0;
+	}
  
  	spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
  	this_cpu_inc(eventfd_wake_count);
@@ -83,6 +88,7 @@ __u64 eventfd_signal(struct eventfd_ctx *ctx, __u64 n)
  		wake_up_locked_poll(&ctx->wqh, EPOLLIN);
  	this_cpu_dec(eventfd_wake_count);
  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->wqh.lock, flags);
+	local_unlock(&eventfd_wake_lock);
  
  	return n;
  }