linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical

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]
Date:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 22:11:34 +0300
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aakash Hemadri <aakashhemadri123@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical_mutex()

On 9/3/21 18:09, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 9/2/21 12:32, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 01:36:56PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>>> Remove _enter_critical_mutex() and _exit_critical_mutex(). They are
>>> unnecessary wrappers, respectively to mutex_lock_interruptible() and
>>> to mutex_unlock(). They also have an odd interface that takes an unused
>>> argument named pirqL of type unsigned long.
>>> The original code enters the critical section if the mutex API is
>>> interrupted while waiting to acquire the lock; therefore it could lead
>>> to a race condition. Use mutex_lock() because it is uninterruptible and
>>> so avoid that above-mentioned potential race condition.
>>> 
>>> Tested-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> v5: Fix a typo in the subject line. Reported by Aakash Hemadri.
>>> 
>>> v4: Tested and reviewed by Pavel Skripkin. No changes to the code.
>>> 
>>> v3: Assume that the original authors don't expect that
>>> mutex_lock_interruptible() can be really interrupted and then lead to 
>>> a potential race condition. Furthermore, Greg Kroah-Hartman makes me
>>> notice that "[] one almost never needs interruptable locks in a driver".
>>> Therefore, replace the calls to mutex_lock_interruptible() with calls to
>>> mutex_lock() since the latter is uninterruptible and avoid race
>>> conditions without the necessity to handle -EINTR errors.
>> 
>> Based on a recent conversation on the linux-usb mailing list, perhaps I
>> was wrong:
>> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210829015825.GA297712@rowland.harvard.edu
>> 
>> Can you check what happens with your change when you disconnect the
>> device and these code paths are being called?  That is when you do want
>> the lock interrupted.
>> 
>> Yes, the logic still seems wrong, but I don't want to see the code now
>> just lock up entirely with this change as it is a change in how things
>> work from today.
>> 
> 
> Hi, Greg!
> 
> I've retested this patch with lockdep enabled and I actually hit a
> deadlock. It's really my fault to forgot about lockdep while testing v4,
> I am sorry about the situation.
> 
> Actually, the disconnect here is not the problem, the problem was in
> original code. Changing mutex_lock_interruptible to mutex_lock just
> helped to discover it.
> 
> 
> The log:
> 
> [  252.063305] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> [  252.063642] 5.14.0+ #9 Tainted: G         C
> [  252.063946] --------------------------------------------
> [  252.064282] ip/335 is trying to acquire lock:
> [  252.064560] ffff888009ebad28 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> usbctrl_vendorreq+0xc5/0x4a0 [r8188eu]
> [  252.065168]
> [  252.065168] but task is already holding lock:
> [  252.065536] ffffffffc021b3b8 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> netdev_open+0x3a/0x5f [r8188eu]
> [  252.066085]
> [  252.066085] other info that might help us debug this:
> [  252.066494]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [  252.066494]
> [  252.066866]        CPU0
> [  252.067025]        ----
> [  252.067184]   lock(pmutex);
> [  252.067367]   lock(pmutex);
> [  252.067548]
> [  252.067548]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [  252.067548]
> [  252.067920]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> [  252.067920]
> [  252.068346] 2 locks held by ip/335:
> [  252.068570]  #0: ffffffffbda94628 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1e0/0x660
> [  252.069115]  #1: ffffffffc021b3b8 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> netdev_open+0x3a/0x5f [r8188eu]
> [  252.069690]
> [  252.069690] stack backtrace:
> [  252.069968] CPU: 1 PID: 335 Comm: ip Tainted: G         C
> 5.14.0+ #9
> [  252.071111] Call Trace:
> [  252.071273]  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
> [  252.071513]  __lock_acquire.cold+0x1fe/0x31b
> [  252.072709]  lock_acquire+0x157/0x3c0
> [  252.074445]  __mutex_lock+0xf6/0xc90
> [  252.076294]  usbctrl_vendorreq+0xc5/0x4a0 [r8188eu]
> [  252.076651]  usb_read8+0x68/0x8f [r8188eu]
> [  252.076962]  ? usb_read16+0x8e/0x8e [r8188eu]
> [  252.077287]  _rtw_read8+0x2d/0x32 [r8188eu]
> [  252.077601]  HalPwrSeqCmdParsing+0x143/0x1de [r8188eu]
> [  252.077979]  rtl8188eu_InitPowerOn+0x5a/0xe0 [r8188eu]
> [  252.078352]  rtl8188eu_hal_init+0xe7/0x1008 [r8188eu]
> [  252.078989]  rtw_hal_init+0x38/0xb5 [r8188eu]
> [  252.079317]  _netdev_open+0x282/0x4db [r8188eu]
> [  252.079653]  netdev_open+0x42/0x5f [r8188eu]
> 
> 

Ok, sorry for noise. It's 100% false positive. Why?

There is no pmutex in this driver. But! *All* mutexes are initialied via 
private _rtw_mutex_init() API, which has a struct mutex *pmutex argument.

So, driver registers all mutexes with the same name to lockdep map. Of 
course, lockdep will complain about _any_ nested locking...


I will prepare a patch to fix this *completely wrong* approach...




With regards,
Pavel Skripkin