linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/osnoise: Fix possible recursive locking for cpus_read

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]

Message-Id: <20250317122810.2720668-1-ranxiaokai627@163.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:28:10 +0000
From: Ran Xiaokai <ranxiaokai627@....com>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	mhiramat@...nel.org,
	ran.xiaokai@....com.cn,
	ranxiaokai627@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/osnoise: Fix possible recursive locking for cpus_read_lock()

>On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 03:42:53 +0000
>Ran Xiaokai <ranxiaokai627@....com> wrote:
>
>> >> @@ -2105,7 +2104,12 @@ static void osnoise_hotplug_workfn(struct
>> >> work_struct *dummy)
>> >>      if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &osnoise_cpumask))
>> >>          return;
>> >>  
>> >> -    start_kthread(cpu);
>> >> +    if (start_kthread(cpu)) {
>> >> +        cpus_read_unlock();
>> >> +        stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>> >> +        return;  
>> >
>> >If all you want to do is to unlock before calling stop_per_cpu_kthreads(),
>> >then this should simply be:
>> >
>> >   if (start_kthread(cpu)) {
>> >       cpus_read_unlock();
>> >       stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>> >       cpus_read_lock(); // The guard() above will unlock this
>> >       return;
>> >   }  
>> 
>> This is the deadlock senario:
>> start_per_cpu_kthreads()
>>   cpus_read_lock();                  // first lock call
>>   start_kthread(cpu)
>>     ... kthread_run_on_cpu() fails:
>>     if (IS_ERR(kthread)) {
>>       stop_per_cpu_kthreads(); {
>>         cpus_read_lock();      // second lock call. Cause the AA deadlock senario
>>       }
>>     }
>>   stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>> 
>> Besides, stop_per_cpu_kthreads() is called both in start_per_cpu_kthreads() and
>> start_kthread() which is unnecessary.
>> 
>> So the fix should be inside start_kthread()?
>> How about this ?
>
>No! You misunderstood what I wrote above.
>
>Instead of removing the guard, keep it!
>
>Do everything the same, but instead of having the error path of:
>
>[..]
>    if (start_kthread(cpu)) {
>        cpus_read_unlock();
>        stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>        return;
>    }
>    cpus_read_unlock();
> }
>
>Which requires removing the guard. Just do:
>
>    if (start_kthread(cpu)) {
>        cpus_read_unlock();
>        stop_per_cpu_kthreads();
>        cpus_read_lock(); // The guard() will unlock this
>    }
> }

Hi, Steve
Sorry for the late response.
Yes, this will fix the deadlock issue.

What i mentioned before is that there is a redundant of stop_per_cpu_kthreads()
in start_per_cpu_kthreads().

start_per_cpu_kthreads()
  for_each_cpu(cpu, current_mask) {
    retval = start_kthread(cpu);
             {
                if (IS_ERR(kthread))
                 stop_per_cpu_kthreads();  // first cleanup call of stop_per_cpu_kthreads()
                 return -ENOMEM;
             }
    if (retval) {
      cpus_read_unlock();
      stop_per_cpu_kthreads();            // the redundant call of stop_per_cpu_kthreads()

But the second call will not cause any trouble, So i will send a v2
just according to your suggestion.

>I'm just saying to not replace the guard with open coded locking of
>cpus_read_lock().
>
>-- Steve