linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ftrace: fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct

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: <A3E35DD7-5270-49FF-AAEB-C7504B5EF22E@fb.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:47:02 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ftrace: fix recursive locking direct_mutex in
 ftrace_modify_direct_caller

Hi Steven,

> On Sep 27, 2022, at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Minor nit, just change the subject to start with a capital letter.
> 
> ftrace: Fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller
> 
> Other than that, this looks good.
> 
> Do you want to put this through your tree, or do you want me to take it?
> 
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Thanks for the review! Since this only touches ftrace code, please take 
it through your tree. 

Best,
Song

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:41:46 -0700
> Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>> Naveen reported recursive locking of direct_mutex with sample
>> ftrace-direct-modify.ko:
>> 
>> [   74.762406] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
>> [   74.762887] 6.0.0-rc6+ #33 Not tainted
>> [   74.763216] --------------------------------------------
>> [   74.763672] event-sample-fn/1084 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [   74.764152] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>>    register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.764922]
>> [   74.764922] but task is already holding lock:
>> [   74.765421] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>>    modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0
>> [   74.766142]
>> [   74.766142] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [   74.766701]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [   74.766701]
>> [   74.767216]        CPU0
>> [   74.767437]        ----
>> [   74.767656]   lock(direct_mutex);
>> [   74.767952]   lock(direct_mutex);
>> [   74.768245]
>> [   74.768245]  *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [   74.768245]
>> [   74.768750]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>> [   74.768750]
>> [   74.769332] 1 lock held by event-sample-fn/1084:
>> [   74.769731]  #0: ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>>    modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0
>> [   74.770496]
>> [   74.770496] stack backtrace:
>> [   74.770884] CPU: 4 PID: 1084 Comm: event-sample-fn Not tainted ...
>> [   74.771498] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), ...
>> [   74.772474] Call Trace:
>> [   74.772696]  <TASK>
>> [   74.772896]  dump_stack_lvl+0x44/0x5b
>> [   74.773223]  __lock_acquire.cold.74+0xac/0x2b7
>> [   74.773616]  lock_acquire+0xd2/0x310
>> [   74.773936]  ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.774357]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd8/0x130
>> [   74.774744]  ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.775213]  __mutex_lock+0x99/0x1010
>> [   74.775536]  ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.775954]  ? slab_free_freelist_hook.isra.43+0x115/0x160
>> [   74.776424]  ? ftrace_set_hash+0x195/0x220
>> [   74.776779]  ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.777194]  ? kfree+0x3e1/0x440
>> [   74.777482]  ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.777941]  ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [   74.778258]  ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.778672]  ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.779128]  register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [   74.779527]  ? ftrace_set_filter_ip+0x33/0x70
>> [   74.779910]  ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [   74.780231]  ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.780678]  ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.781147]  ftrace_modify_direct_caller+0x5b/0x90
>> [   74.781563]  ? 0xffffffffa0201000
>> [   74.781859]  ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.782309]  modify_ftrace_direct+0x1b2/0x1f0
>> [   74.782690]  ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [   74.783014]  ? simple_thread+0x2a/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.783508]  ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [   74.783832]  ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.784294]  simple_thread+0x76/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [   74.784766]  kthread+0xf5/0x120
>> [   74.785052]  ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>> [   74.785464]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>> [   74.785781]  </TASK>
>> 
>> Fix this by using register_ftrace_function_nolock in
>> ftrace_modify_direct_caller.
>> 
>> Fixes: 53cd885bc5c3 ("ftrace: Allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops on the same function")
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
>>