| 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: <a956e24b-7f78-7aa0-ec1a-1e6b169c5835@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:21:47 +0100
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix
dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency
On 10/08/2023 4:41 pm, Waiman Long wrote:
> The following circular locking dependency was reported when running
> cpus online/offline test on an arm64 system.
>
> [ 84.195923] Chain exists of:
> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock --> cpu_hotplug_lock --> cpuhp_state-down
>
> [ 84.207305] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 84.213212] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 84.217729] ---- ----
> [ 84.222247] lock(cpuhp_state-down);
> [ 84.225899] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
> [ 84.232068] lock(cpuhp_state-down);
> [ 84.238237] lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> [ 84.242236]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> The problematic locking order seems to be
>
> lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock) --> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock)
>
> This locking order happens when dmc620_pmu_get_irq() calls
> cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(). Since dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock is used
> for protecting the dmc620_pmu_irqs structure, we don't actually need
> to hold the lock when adding a new instance to the CPU hotplug subsystem.
>
> Fix this possible deadlock scenario by adding a new dmc620_pmu_get_lock
> for protecting the call to __dmc620_pmu_get_irq(). While at it, rename
> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock to dmc620_pmu_list_lock as it is now just protecting
> the iteration and modification of pmus_node and irqs_node lists.
>
> As a result, cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() won't be called with
> reanemd dmc620_pmu_list_lock held and cpu_hotplug_lock won't be acquired
> after dmc620_pmu_list_lock.
>
> Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
> index 9d0f01c4455a..a5bfc8f2e6ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,14 @@
> #define DMC620_PMU_COUNTERn_OFFSET(n) \
> (DMC620_PMU_COUNTERS_BASE + 0x28 * (n))
>
> +/*
> + * The allowable lock ordering is:
> + * - dmc620_pmu_get_lock (protects call to __dmc620_pmu_get_irq())
> + * - dmc620_pmu_list_lock (protects pmus_node & irqs_node lists)
Sorry, this isn't right: touching the irqs_node list *is* the aspect of
__dmc620_pmu_get_irq() which warrants globally locking. It's then the
pmus_node lists which want locking separately from that - those could
strictly be locked per dmc620_pmu_irq instance, but that would be a big
waste of space, so we can still combine them under a single global lock.
I just went too far in thinking I could get away with (ab)using the same
lock for both purposes since they didn't overlap :)
> + */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(dmc620_pmu_get_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(dmc620_pmu_irqs);
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
>
> struct dmc620_pmu_irq {
> struct hlist_node node;
> @@ -423,9 +429,11 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num)
> struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq;
> int ret;
>
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node)
> if (irq->irq_num == irq_num && refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount))
> - return irq;
> + goto unlock_out;
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
>
> irq = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!irq)
> @@ -452,8 +460,10 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num)
> goto out_free_irq;
>
> irq->irq_num = irq_num;
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> list_add(&irq->irqs_node, &dmc620_pmu_irqs);
> -
> +unlock_out:
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> return irq;
>
> out_free_irq:
> @@ -467,17 +477,17 @@ static int dmc620_pmu_get_irq(struct dmc620_pmu *dmc620_pmu, int irq_num)
> {
> struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq;
>
> - mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_get_lock);
> irq = __dmc620_pmu_get_irq(irq_num);
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_get_lock);
>
> if (IS_ERR(irq))
> return PTR_ERR(irq);
>
> dmc620_pmu->irq = irq;
> - mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> list_add_rcu(&dmc620_pmu->pmus_node, &irq->pmus_node);
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -486,16 +496,16 @@ static void dmc620_pmu_put_irq(struct dmc620_pmu *dmc620_pmu)
> {
> struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq = dmc620_pmu->irq;
>
> - mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> list_del_rcu(&dmc620_pmu->pmus_node);
Ah, it might be the laziness in this function that's misled you.
Logically it ought to just be a case of dropping pmu_list_lock here
after removing from the pmus_node list, then taking pmu_get_lock before
the following list_del from the main global list (I think that shouldn't
*need* to cover the refcount operation as well, but equally there's
probably no harm if it does).
Thanks,
Robin.
> if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&irq->refcount)) {
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> return;
> }
>
> list_del(&irq->irqs_node);
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
>
> free_irq(irq->irq_num, irq);
> cpuhp_state_remove_instance_nocalls(cpuhp_state_num, &irq->node);
> @@ -638,10 +648,10 @@ static int dmc620_pmu_cpu_teardown(unsigned int cpu,
> return 0;
>
> /* We're only reading, but this isn't the place to be involving RCU */
> - mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(dmc620_pmu, &irq->pmus_node, pmus_node)
> perf_pmu_migrate_context(&dmc620_pmu->pmu, irq->cpu, target);
> - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_list_lock);
>
> WARN_ON(irq_set_affinity(irq->irq_num, cpumask_of(target)));
> irq->cpu = target;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists