| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Y1MymJ/INb45AdaY@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:00:24 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
kernel test robot <yujie.liu@...el.com>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
<lkp@...ts.01.org>, <lkp@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [shmem] 7a7256d5f5: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 03:48:57PM -0700, Ira wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:30:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:09:16 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 12:10:17PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > FYI, we noticed WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected due to commit (built with gcc-11):
> > > >
> > > > commit: 7a7256d5f512b6c17957df7f59cf5e281b3ddba3 ("shmem: convert shmem_mfill_atomic_pte() to use a folio")
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > >
> > > Ummm. Looks to me like this now occurs because of this part of the
> > > change:
> > >
> > > if (!zeropage) { /* COPY */
> > > - page_kaddr = kmap_atomic(page);
> > > + page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
> > > ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
> > > (const void __user *)src_addr,
> > > PAGE_SIZE);
> > > - kunmap_atomic(page_kaddr);
> > > + kunmap_local(page_kaddr);
> > >
> > > Should I be using __copy_from_user_inatomic() here?
>
> I would say not. I'm curious why copy_from_user() was safe (at least did not
> fail the checkers). :-/
>
> >
> > Caller __mcopy_atomic() is holding mmap_read_lock(dst_mm) and this
> > copy_from_user() calls
> > might_fault()->might_lock_read(current->mm->mmap_lock).
> >
> > And I guess might_lock_read() gets upset because we're holding another
> > mm's mmap_lock. Which sounds OK to me, unless a concurrent
> > mmap_write_lock() could jam things up.
> >
> > But I cannot see why your patch would suddenly trigger this warning -
> > kmap_local_folio() and kmap_atomic() are basically the same thing.
>
> It is related to your patch but I think what you did made sense on the surface.
>
> On the surface copy_from_user() should not require pagefaults to be disabled.
> But that side affect of kmap_atomic() was being used here because it looks like
> the code is designed to fallback if the fault was not allowed:[1]
>
> mm/shmem.c
> ...
> page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
> ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
> (const void __user *)src_addr,
> PAGE_SIZE);
> kunmap_local(page_kaddr);
>
> /* fallback to copy_from_user outside mmap_lock */
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> if (unlikely(ret)) {
> *pagep = &folio->page;
> ret = -ENOENT;
> /* don't free the page */
> goto out_unacct_blocks;
> }
> ...
>
> So this is one of those rare places where the kmap_atomic() side effects were
> being depended on... :-(
>
> [1] might_fault() does not actually mean the code completes the fault.
>
> mm/memory.c
> ...
> void __might_fault(const char *file, int line)
> {
> if (pagefault_disabled())
> return;
> ...
>
> >
> > I see that __mcopy_atomic() is using plain old kmap(), perhaps to work
> > around this? But that's 2015 code and I'm not sure we had such
> > detailed lock checking in those days.
>
> No kmap() can't work around this. That works because the lock is released just
> above that.
>
> mm/userfaultfd.c
> ...
> mmap_read_unlock(dst_mm);
> BUG_ON(!page);
>
> page_kaddr = kmap(page);
> err = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
> (const void __user *) src_addr,
> PAGE_SIZE);
> kunmap(page);
> ...
>
> So I think the correct solution is below because we want to prevent the page
> fault.
I was about to get this patch ready to send when I found this:
commit b6ebaedb4cb1a18220ae626c3a9e184ee39dd248
Author: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Date: Fri Sep 4 15:47:08 2015 -0700
userfaultfd: avoid mmap_sem read recursion in mcopy_atomic
If the rwsem starves writers it wasn't strictly a bug but lockdep
doesn't like it and this avoids depending on lowlevel implementation
details of the lock.
[akpm@...ux-foundation.org: delete weird BUILD_BUG_ON()]
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
...
So I wonder if the true fix is something to lockdep?
Regardless I'll send the below patch because it will restore things to a
working order.
But I'm CC'ing Andrea for comments.
Ira
>
> Ira
>
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 8280a5cb48df..6c8e99bf5983 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -2424,9 +2424,11 @@ int shmem_mfill_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>
> if (!zeropage) { /* COPY */
> page_kaddr = kmap_local_folio(folio, 0);
> + pagefault_disable()
> ret = copy_from_user(page_kaddr,
> (const void __user *)src_addr,
> PAGE_SIZE);
> + pagefault_enable()
> kunmap_local(page_kaddr);
>
> /* fallback to copy_from_user outside mmap_lock */
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists