linux-kernel - [PATCH 11/11] hlist-bl: introduced nested locking for dm-snap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231206060629.2827226-12-david@fromorbit.com>
Date:   Wed,  6 Dec 2023 17:05:40 +1100
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, gfs2@...ts.linux.dev,
        dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 11/11] hlist-bl: introduced nested locking for dm-snap

From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>

Testing with lockdep enabled threw this warning from generic/081 in
fstests:

[ 2369.724151] ============================================
[ 2369.725805] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[ 2369.727125] 6.7.0-rc2-dgc+ #1952 Not tainted
[ 2369.728647] --------------------------------------------
[ 2369.730197] systemd-udevd/389493 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 2369.732378] ffff888116a1a320 (&(et->table + i)->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: snapshot_map+0x13e/0x7f0
[ 2369.736197]
               but task is already holding lock:
[ 2369.738657] ffff8881098a4fd0 (&(et->table + i)->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: snapshot_map+0x136/0x7f0
[ 2369.742118]
               other info that might help us debug this:
[ 2369.744403]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[ 2369.746814]        CPU0
[ 2369.747675]        ----
[ 2369.748496]   lock(&(et->table + i)->lock);
[ 2369.749877]   lock(&(et->table + i)->lock);
[ 2369.751241]
                *** DEADLOCK ***

[ 2369.753173]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

[ 2369.754963] 4 locks held by systemd-udevd/389493:
[ 2369.756124]  #0: ffff88811b3a1f48 (mapping.invalidate_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x69/0x190
[ 2369.758516]  #1: ffff888121ceff10 (&md->io_barrier){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: dm_get_live_table+0x52/0xd0
[ 2369.760888]  #2: ffff888110240078 (&s->lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: snapshot_map+0x12e/0x7f0
[ 2369.763254]  #3: ffff8881098a4fd0 (&(et->table + i)->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: snapshot_map+0x136/0x7f0
[ 2369.765896]
               stack backtrace:
[ 2369.767429] CPU: 3 PID: 389493 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 6.7.0-rc2-dgc+ #1952
[ 2369.770203] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.2-debian-1.16.2-1 04/01/2014
[ 2369.773771] Call Trace:
[ 2369.774657]  <TASK>
[ 2369.775494]  dump_stack_lvl+0x5c/0xc0
[ 2369.776765]  dump_stack+0x10/0x20
[ 2369.778031]  print_deadlock_bug+0x220/0x2f0
[ 2369.779568]  __lock_acquire+0x1255/0x2180
[ 2369.781013]  lock_acquire+0xb9/0x2c0
[ 2369.782456]  ? snapshot_map+0x13e/0x7f0
[ 2369.783927]  ? snapshot_map+0x136/0x7f0
[ 2369.785240]  _raw_spin_lock+0x34/0x70
[ 2369.786413]  ? snapshot_map+0x13e/0x7f0
[ 2369.787482]  snapshot_map+0x13e/0x7f0
[ 2369.788462]  ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x75/0x250
[ 2369.789650]  __map_bio+0x1d7/0x200
[ 2369.790364]  dm_submit_bio+0x17d/0x570
[ 2369.791387]  __submit_bio+0x4a/0x80
[ 2369.792215]  submit_bio_noacct_nocheck+0x108/0x350
[ 2369.793357]  submit_bio_noacct+0x115/0x450
[ 2369.794334]  submit_bio+0x43/0x60
[ 2369.795112]  mpage_readahead+0xf1/0x130
[ 2369.796037]  ? blkdev_write_begin+0x30/0x30
[ 2369.797007]  blkdev_readahead+0x15/0x20
[ 2369.797893]  read_pages+0x5c/0x230
[ 2369.798703]  page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x143/0x190
[ 2369.799810]  force_page_cache_ra+0x9a/0xc0
[ 2369.800754]  page_cache_sync_ra+0x2e/0x50
[ 2369.801704]  filemap_get_pages+0x112/0x630
[ 2369.802696]  ? __lock_acquire+0x413/0x2180
[ 2369.803663]  filemap_read+0xfc/0x3a0
[ 2369.804527]  ? __might_sleep+0x42/0x70
[ 2369.805443]  blkdev_read_iter+0x6d/0x150
[ 2369.806370]  vfs_read+0x1a6/0x2d0
[ 2369.807148]  ksys_read+0x71/0xf0
[ 2369.807936]  __x64_sys_read+0x19/0x20
[ 2369.808810]  do_syscall_64+0x3c/0xe0
[ 2369.809746]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0x6b
[ 2369.810914] RIP: 0033:0x7f9f14dbb03d

Turns out that dm-snap holds two hash-bl locks at the same time,
so we need nesting semantics to ensure lockdep understands what is
going on.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
---
 drivers/md/dm-snap.c    |  2 +-
 include/linux/list_bl.h | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-snap.c b/drivers/md/dm-snap.c
index bf7a574499a3..cd97d5cb295d 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-snap.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-snap.c
@@ -645,7 +645,7 @@ static void dm_exception_table_lock_init(struct dm_snapshot *s, chunk_t chunk,
 static void dm_exception_table_lock(struct dm_exception_table_lock *lock)
 {
 	hlist_bl_lock(lock->complete_slot);
-	hlist_bl_lock(lock->pending_slot);
+	hlist_bl_lock_nested(lock->pending_slot, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 }
 
 static void dm_exception_table_unlock(struct dm_exception_table_lock *lock)
diff --git a/include/linux/list_bl.h b/include/linux/list_bl.h
index 990ad8e24e0b..0e3e60c10563 100644
--- a/include/linux/list_bl.h
+++ b/include/linux/list_bl.h
@@ -83,6 +83,11 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_lock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 	spin_lock(&b->lock);
 }
 
+static inline void hlist_bl_lock_nested(struct hlist_bl_head *b, int subclass)
+{
+	spin_lock_nested(&b->lock, subclass);
+}
+
 static inline void hlist_bl_unlock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 {
 	spin_unlock(&b->lock);
@@ -125,6 +130,11 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_lock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 	bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
 }
 
+static inline void hlist_bl_lock_nested(struct hlist_bl_head *b, int subclass)
+{
+	hlist_bl_lock(b);
+}
+
 static inline void hlist_bl_unlock(struct hlist_bl_head *b)
 {
 	__bit_spin_unlock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
-- 
2.42.0