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, 23 Jun 2023 19:12:31 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.co>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()

It was brought up by Tetsuo that the following sequence
   write_seqlock_irqsave()
   printk_deferred_enter()

could lead to a deadlock if the lockdep annotation within
write_seqlock_irqsave() triggers. The problem is that the sequence
counter is incremented before the lockdep annotation is performed. The
lockdep splat would then attempt to invoke printk() but the reader side,
of the same seqcount, could have a tty_port::lock acquired waiting for
the sequence number to become even again.

The other lockdep annotations come before the actual locking because "we
want to see the locking error before it happens". There is no reason why
seqcount should be different here.

Do the lockdep annotation first then perform the locking operation (the
sequence increment).

Fixes: 1ca7d67cf5d5a ("seqcount: Add lockdep functionality to seqcount/seqlock structures")
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20230621130641.-5iueY1I@linutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
---
 include/linux/seqlock.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/seqlock.h b/include/linux/seqlock.h
index 3926e90279477..d778af83c8f36 100644
--- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
@@ -512,8 +512,8 @@ do {									\
 
 static inline void do_write_seqcount_begin_nested(seqcount_t *s, int subclass)
 {
-	do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(s);
 	seqcount_acquire(&s->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
+	do_raw_write_seqcount_begin(s);
 }
 
 /**
-- 
2.40.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ