| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:43:58 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.14 049/100] iommu/vt-d: Fix a deadlock in intel_svm_drain_prq()
From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
[ Upstream commit 6ef0505158f7ca1b32763a3b038b5d11296b642b ]
pasid_mutex and dev->iommu->param->lock are held while unbinding mm is
flushing IO page fault workqueue and waiting for all page fault works to
finish. But an in-flight page fault work also need to hold the two locks
while unbinding mm are holding them and waiting for the work to finish.
This may cause an ABBA deadlock issue as shown below:
idxd 0000:00:0a.0: unbind PASID 2
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc7+ #549 Not tainted [ 186.615245] ----------
dsa_test/898 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888100d854e8 (¶m->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff82b2f7c8 (pasid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
intel_svm_unbind+0x34/0x1e0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (pasid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x75/0x730
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
intel_svm_page_response+0x8e/0x260
iommu_page_response+0x122/0x200
iopf_handle_group+0x1c2/0x240
process_one_work+0x2a5/0x5a0
worker_thread+0x55/0x400
kthread+0x13b/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-> #1 (¶m->fault_param->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x75/0x730
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
iommu_report_device_fault+0xc2/0x170
prq_event_thread+0x28a/0x580
irq_thread_fn+0x28/0x60
irq_thread+0xcf/0x180
kthread+0x13b/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-> #0 (¶m->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1134/0x1d60
lock_acquire+0xc6/0x2e0
__mutex_lock+0x75/0x730
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
intel_svm_drain_prq+0x127/0x210
intel_svm_unbind+0xc5/0x1e0
iommu_sva_unbind_device+0x62/0x80
idxd_cdev_release+0x15a/0x200 [idxd]
__fput+0x9c/0x250
____fput+0xe/0x10
task_work_run+0x64/0xa0
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x227/0x230
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x2c/0x60
do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
¶m->lock --> ¶m->fault_param->lock --> pasid_mutex
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(pasid_mutex);
lock(¶m->fault_param->lock);
lock(pasid_mutex);
lock(¶m->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by dsa_test/898:
#0: ffff888100cc1cc0 (&group->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
iommu_sva_unbind_device+0x53/0x80
#1: ffffffff82b2f7c8 (pasid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
intel_svm_unbind+0x34/0x1e0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 898 Comm: dsa_test Not tainted 5.14.0-rc7+ #549
Hardware name: Intel Corporation Kabylake Client platform/KBL S
DDR4 UD IMM CRB, BIOS KBLSE2R1.R00.X050.P01.1608011715 08/01/2016
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x74
dump_stack+0x10/0x12
print_circular_bug.cold+0x13d/0x142
check_noncircular+0xf1/0x110
__lock_acquire+0x1134/0x1d60
lock_acquire+0xc6/0x2e0
? iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
? pci_mmcfg_read+0xde/0x240
__mutex_lock+0x75/0x730
? iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
? pci_mmcfg_read+0xfd/0x240
? iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
iopf_queue_flush_dev+0x29/0x60
intel_svm_drain_prq+0x127/0x210
? intel_pasid_tear_down_entry+0x22e/0x240
intel_svm_unbind+0xc5/0x1e0
iommu_sva_unbind_device+0x62/0x80
idxd_cdev_release+0x15a/0x200
pasid_mutex protects pasid and svm data mapping data. It's unnecessary
to hold pasid_mutex while flushing the workqueue. To fix the deadlock
issue, unlock pasid_pasid during flushing the workqueue to allow the works
to be handled.
Fixes: d5b9e4bfe0d8 ("iommu/vt-d: Report prq to io-pgfault framework")
Reported-and-tested-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210826215918.4073446-1-fenghua.yu@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210828070622.2437559-3-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com
[joro: Removed timing information from kernel log messages]
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c | 12 ++++++++++++
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
index ceeca633a5f9..d575082567ca 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/intel/svm.c
@@ -793,7 +793,19 @@ prq_retry:
goto prq_retry;
}
+ /*
+ * A work in IO page fault workqueue may try to lock pasid_mutex now.
+ * Holding pasid_mutex while waiting in iopf_queue_flush_dev() for
+ * all works in the workqueue to finish may cause deadlock.
+ *
+ * It's unnecessary to hold pasid_mutex in iopf_queue_flush_dev().
+ * Unlock it to allow the works to be handled while waiting for
+ * them to finish.
+ */
+ lockdep_assert_held(&pasid_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&pasid_mutex);
iopf_queue_flush_dev(dev);
+ mutex_lock(&pasid_mutex);
/*
* Perform steps described in VT-d spec CH7.10 to drain page
--
2.33.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists