linux-kernel - Re: possible deadlock in __ata_sff

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, 16 Dec 2022 19:25:59 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in __ata_sff_interrupt

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 01:59:32AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:54:09PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:39:21PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > [Boqun Feng Cc'd]
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:26:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:41 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU1: ptrace(2)
> > > > >         ptrace_check_attach()
> > > > >                 read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU2: setpgid(2)
> > > > >         write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > >         spins
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU1: takes an interrupt that would call kill_fasync().  grep and the
> > > > > first instance of kill_fasync() is in hpet_interrupt() - it's not
> > > > > something exotic.  IRQs disabled on CPU2 won't stop it.
> > > > >         kill_fasync(..., SIGIO, ...)
> > > > >                 kill_fasync_rcu()
> > > > >                         read_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
> > > > >                         send_sigio()
> > > > >                                 read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock, flags);
> > > > >                                 read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and CPU1 spins as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Nope. See kernel/locking/qrwlock.c:
> > > 
> > > [snip rwlocks are inherently unfair, queued ones are somewhat milder, but
> > > all implementations have writers-starving behaviour for read_lock() at least
> > > when in_interrupt()]
> > > 
> > > D'oh...  Consider requested "Al, you are a moron" duly delivered...  I plead
> > > having been on way too low caffeine and too little sleep ;-/
> > > 
> > > Looking at the original report, looks like the scenario there is meant to be
> > > the following:
> > > 
> > > CPU1: read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> > > 	tasklist_lock grabbed
> > > 
> > > CPU2: get an sg write(2) feeding request to libata; host->lock is taken,
> > > 	request is immediately completed and scsi_done() is about to be called.
> > > 	host->lock grabbed
> > > 
> > > CPU3: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> > > 	spins on tasklist_lock until CPU1 gets through.
> > > 
> > > CPU2: get around to kill_fasync() called by sg_rq_end_io() and to grabbing
> > > 	tasklist_lock inside send_sigio()
> > > 	spins, since it's not in an interrupt and there's a pending writer
> > > 	host->lock is held, spin until CPU3 gets through.
> > 
> > Right, for a reader not in_interrupt(), it may be blocked by a random
> > waiting writer because of the fairness, even the lock is currently held
> > by a reader:
> > 
> > 	CPU 1			CPU 2		CPU 3
> > 	read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // get the lock
> > 
> > 						write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); // wait for the lock
> > 
> > 				read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // cannot get the lock because of the fairness
> 
> IOW, any caller of scsi_done() from non-interrupt context while
> holding a spinlock that is also taken in an interrupt...
> 
> And we have drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c:scsi_send_eh_cmnd(), which calls
> ->queuecommand() under a mutex, with
> #define DEF_SCSI_QCMD(func_name) \
>         int func_name(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)   \
>         {                                                               \
>                 unsigned long irq_flags;                                \
>                 int rc;                                                 \
>                 spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, irq_flags);         \
>                 rc = func_name##_lck(cmd);                              \
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, irq_flags);    \
>                 return rc;                                              \
>         }
> 
> being commonly used for ->queuecommand() instances.  So any scsi_done()
> in foo_lck() (quite a few of such) + use of ->host_lock in interrupt
> for the same driver (also common)...
> 
> I wonder why that hadn't triggered the same warning a long time
> ago - these warnings had been around for at least two years.
> 

FWIW, the complete dependency chain is:

	&host->lock --> &new->fa_lock --> &f->f_owner.lock --> tasklist_lock

for the "&f->f_owner.lock" part to get into lockdep's radar, the
following call trace needs to appear once:

	kill_fasync():
	  kill_fasync_rcu():
	    send_sigio()

not sure whether it's rare or not though. And ->fa_lock also had its own
issue:

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210702091831.615042-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com/

which may have covered &host->lock for a while ;-)

Regards,
Boqun

> Am I missing something here?