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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 09:55:18 +0200
From:   Alexander A Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
To:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] i2c: core: Workaround false-positive LOCKDEP in delete_device

From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>

Drop the mutex earlier in the loop so that LOCKDEP is not being provoked:

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
.../9201 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffff85656d4e78 (kn->count#159){++++}, at: kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x5c/0xac

but task is already holding lock:
ffffff857b329e80 (&adap->userspace_clients_lock){+.+.}, at: i2c_sysfs_delete_device+0x8c/0x1f0

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&adap->userspace_clients_lock){+.+.}:
       __mutex_lock+0xa4/0x924
       mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x5c
       i2c_sysfs_new_device+0x108/0x220
       dev_attr_store+0x48/0x60
       sysfs_kf_write+0x54/0x80
       kernfs_fop_write+0x120/0x240
       __vfs_write+0x4c/0x90
       vfs_write+0xe8/0x1d0
       ksys_write+0x7c/0x104
       __arm64_sys_write+0x28/0x3c
       el0_svc_handler+0x90/0x200
       el0_svc+0x8/0x16c

-> #0 (kn->count#159){++++}:
       __lock_acquire+0xe8c/0x1a90
       lock_acquire+0xd8/0x270
       __kernfs_remove+0x2fc/0x360
       kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x5c/0xac
       remove_files+0x48/0x90
       sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa0
       sysfs_remove_groups+0x44/0x60
       device_remove_attrs+0x60/0x80
       device_del+0x134/0x360
       device_unregister+0x28/0x80
       i2c_del_adapter+0x210/0x2a4
       i2c_mux_del_adapters+0xa4/0xfc
       pca9641_remove+0x24/0x34 [i2c_mux_pca9641]
       i2c_device_remove+0x60/0xd4
       __device_release_driver+0x164/0x1f4
       device_release_driver+0x38/0x4c
       bus_remove_device+0xe0/0x15c
       device_del+0x13c/0x360
       device_unregister+0x28/0x80
       i2c_unregister_device+0x5c/0x70
       i2c_sysfs_delete_device+0x1b8/0x1f0
       dev_attr_store+0x48/0x60
       sysfs_kf_write+0x54/0x80
       kernfs_fop_write+0x120/0x240
       __vfs_write+0x4c/0x90
       vfs_write+0xe8/0x1d0
       ksys_write+0x7c/0x104
       __arm64_sys_write+0x28/0x3c
       el0_svc_handler+0x90/0x200
       el0_svc+0x8/0x16c

other info that might help us debug this:

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&adap->userspace_clients_lock);
                               lock(kn->count#159);
                               lock(&adap->userspace_clients_lock);
  lock(kn->count#159);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

5 locks held by .../9201:
 #0: ffffff83f29c3ce0 (&f->f_pos_lock){+.+.}, at: __fdget_pos+0x74/0xe0
 #1: ffffff857a2f0410 (sb_writers#4){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x174/0x1d0
 #2: ffffff856bbbe680 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0xf0/0x240
 #3: ffffff857b329e80 (&adap->userspace_clients_lock){+.+.}, at: i2c_sysfs_delete_device+0x8c/0x1f0
 #4: ffffff83f134ad80 (&dev->mutex){....}, at: device_release_driver+0x2c/0x4c

stack backtrace:
Call trace:
 dump_backtrace+0x0/0x180
 show_stack+0x28/0x3c
 dump_stack+0xf4/0x150
 print_circular_bug+0x21c/0x22c
 check_noncircular+0x15c/0x1e0
 __lock_acquire+0xe8c/0x1a90
 lock_acquire+0xd8/0x270
 __kernfs_remove+0x2fc/0x360
 kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x5c/0xac
 remove_files+0x48/0x90
 sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa0
 sysfs_remove_groups+0x44/0x60
 device_remove_attrs+0x60/0x80
 device_del+0x134/0x360
 device_unregister+0x28/0x80
 i2c_del_adapter+0x210/0x2a4
 i2c_mux_del_adapters+0xa4/0xfc
 pca9641_remove+0x24/0x34 [i2c_mux_pca9641]
 i2c_device_remove+0x60/0xd4
 __device_release_driver+0x164/0x1f4
 device_release_driver+0x38/0x4c
 bus_remove_device+0xe0/0x15c
 device_del+0x13c/0x360
 device_unregister+0x28/0x80
 i2c_unregister_device+0x5c/0x70
 i2c_sysfs_delete_device+0x1b8/0x1f0
 dev_attr_store+0x48/0x60
 sysfs_kf_write+0x54/0x80
 kernfs_fop_write+0x120/0x240
 __vfs_write+0x4c/0x90
 vfs_write+0xe8/0x1d0
 ksys_write+0x7c/0x104
 __arm64_sys_write+0x28/0x3c
 el0_svc_handler+0x90/0x200
 el0_svc+0x8/0x16c

Signed-off-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
index d43db2c..bd2e3e4 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c
@@ -1272,9 +1272,14 @@ delete_device_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
 				 "delete_device", client->name, client->addr);
 
 			list_del(&client->detected);
+			/*
+			 * We drop the mutex here, because device unregister
+			 * will take sysfs lock (kn->count) which, as LOCKDEP
+			 * would think, depends on this mutex
+			 */
+			mutex_unlock(&adap->userspace_clients_lock);
 			i2c_unregister_device(client);
-			res = count;
-			break;
+			return count;
 		}
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&adap->userspace_clients_lock);
-- 
2.10.2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ