linux-kernel - Re: spidev regression in 6.2-rc kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y8WlBstGn0o64uFN@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 20:27:02 +0100
From:   Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc:     Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, max.krummenacher@...adex.com
Subject: Re: spidev regression in 6.2-rc kernel

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 04:51:58PM +0100, Linux kernel regression tracking (#adding) wrote:
> [TLDR: I'm adding this report to the list of tracked Linux kernel
> regressions; the text you find below is based on a few templates
> paragraphs you might have encountered already in similar form.
> See link in footer if these mails annoy you.]
> 
> On 16.01.23 13:06, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > Hello,
> > we spotted a regression on spidev on latest 6.2-rc kernel.
> > 
> > [  214.047619]
> > [  214.049198] ============================================
> > [  214.054533] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > [  214.059858] 6.2.0-rc3-0.0.0-devel+git.97ec4d559d93 #1 Not tainted
> > [  214.065969] --------------------------------------------
> > [  214.071290] spidev_test/1454 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [  214.076530] c4925dbc (&spidev->spi_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spidev_ioctl+0x8e0/0xab8
> > [  214.084164]
> > [  214.084164] but task is already holding lock:
> > [  214.090007] c4925dbc (&spidev->spi_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spidev_ioctl+0x44/0xab8
> > [  214.097537]
> > [  214.097537] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [  214.104075]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [  214.104075]
> > [  214.110004]        CPU0
> > [  214.112461]        ----
> > [  214.114916]   lock(&spidev->spi_lock);
> > [  214.118687]   lock(&spidev->spi_lock);
> > [  214.122457]
> > [  214.122457]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [  214.122457]
> > [  214.128386]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > [  214.128386]
> > [  214.135183] 2 locks held by spidev_test/1454:
> > [  214.139553]  #0: c4925dbc (&spidev->spi_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spidev_ioctl+0x44/0xab8
> > [  214.147524]  #1: c4925e14 (&spidev->buf_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spidev_ioctl+0x70/0xab8
> > [  214.155493]
> > [  214.155493] stack backtrace:
> > [  214.159861] CPU: 0 PID: 1454 Comm: spidev_test Not tainted 6.2.0-rc3-0.0.0-devel+git.97ec4d559d93 #1
> > [  214.169012] Hardware name: Freescale i.MX6 Quad/DualLite (Device Tree)
> > [  214.175555]  unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x10/0x14
> > [  214.180819]  show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x90
> > [  214.185900]  dump_stack_lvl from __lock_acquire+0x874/0x2858
> > [  214.191584]  __lock_acquire from lock_acquire+0xfc/0x378
> > [  214.196918]  lock_acquire from __mutex_lock+0x9c/0x8a8
> > [  214.202083]  __mutex_lock from mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x24
> > [  214.207597]  mutex_lock_nested from spidev_ioctl+0x8e0/0xab8
> > [  214.213284]  spidev_ioctl from sys_ioctl+0x4d0/0xe2c
> > [  214.218277]  sys_ioctl from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
> > [  214.223351] Exception stack(0xe75cdfa8 to 0xe75cdff0)
> > [  214.228422] dfa0:                   00000000 00001000 00000003 40206b00 bee266e8 bee266e0
> > [  214.236617] dfc0: 00000000 00001000 006a71a0 00000036 004c0040 004bfd18 00000000 00000003
> > [  214.244809] dfe0: 00000036 bee266c8 b6f16dc5 b6e8e5f6
> > 
> > 
> > This is not running the latest rc4, but on sha 97ec4d559d93 (this is
> > just what our CI had available when this test was run). I was not able
> > to bisect it, but it seems something that you could have introduced.
> > 
> > The log is from an apalis-imx6, but I have the same on other ARM SOC.
> 
> Thanks for the report. To be sure the issue doesn't fall through the
> cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, the Linux kernel regression
> tracking bot:
> 
> #regzbot ^introduced 1f4d2dd45b6e
> #regzbot title spi: spidev: recursive locking error
> #regzbot monitor:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230116144149.305560-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/
> #regzbot fix: spi: spidev: fix a recursive locking error
> #regzbot ignore-activity
> 
> This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
> discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
> the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
> something else totally wrong? Then just reply and tell me -- ideally
> while also telling regzbot about it, as explained by the page listed in
> the footer of this mail.

The issue is in mainline, starting from v6.2-rc4, not in next.

#regzbot ^introduced a720416d94634068951773cb9e9d6f1b73769e5b

Francesco