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: <11d8ff97-74e5-440e-b56a-af590da5a3f6@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 08:56:28 +0800
From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Koutný
 <mkoutny@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
 Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/for-next 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Introduce a new top level
 isolcpus_update_mutex



On 2026/1/30 5:16, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 1/29/26 3:01 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>
>> On 2026/1/28 12:42, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> The current cpuset partition code is able to dynamically update
>>> the sched domains of a running system and the corresponding
>>> HK_TYPE_DOMAIN housekeeping cpumask to perform what is essentally the
>>> "isolcpus=domain,..." boot command line feature at run time.
>>>
>>> The housekeeping cpumask update requires flushing a number of different
>>> workqueues which may not be safe with cpus_read_lock() held as the
>>> workqueue flushing code may acquire cpus_read_lock() or acquiring locks
>>> which have locking dependency with cpus_read_lock() down the chain. Below
>>> is an example of such circular locking problem.
>>>
>>>    ======================================================
>>>    WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>>    6.18.0-test+ #2 Tainted: G S
>>>    ------------------------------------------------------
>>>    test_cpuset_prs/10971 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>    ffff888112ba4958 ((wq_completion)sync_wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
>>> touch_wq_lockdep_map+0x7a/0x180
>>>
>>>    but task is already holding lock:
>>>    ffffffffae47f450 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
>>> cpuset_partition_write+0x85/0x130
>>>
>>>    which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>
>>>    the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>>    -> #4 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
>>>    -> #3 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
>>>    -> #2 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
>>>    -> #1 ((work_completion)(&arg.work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
>>>    -> #0 ((wq_completion)sync_wq){+.+.}-{0:0}:
>>>
>>>    Chain exists of:
>>>      (wq_completion)sync_wq --> cpu_hotplug_lock --> cpuset_mutex
>>>
>>>    5 locks held by test_cpuset_prs/10971:
>>>     #0: ffff88816810e440 (sb_writers#7){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0xf9/0x1d0
>>>     #1: ffff8891ab620890 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
>>> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x260/0x5f0
>>>     #2: ffff8890a78b83e8 (kn->active#187){.+.+}-{0:0}, at:
>>> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x2b6/0x5f0
>>>     #3: ffffffffadf32900 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at:
>>> cpuset_partition_write+0x77/0x130
>>>     #4: ffffffffae47f450 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
>>> cpuset_partition_write+0x85/0x130
>>>
>>>    Call Trace:
>>>     <TASK>
>>>       :
>>>     touch_wq_lockdep_map+0x93/0x180
>>>     __flush_workqueue+0x111/0x10b0
>>>     housekeeping_update+0x12d/0x2d0
>>>     update_parent_effective_cpumask+0x595/0x2440
>>>     update_prstate+0x89d/0xce0
>>>     cpuset_partition_write+0xc5/0x130
>>>     cgroup_file_write+0x1a5/0x680
>>>     kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x3df/0x5f0
>>>     vfs_write+0x525/0xfd0
>>>     ksys_write+0xf9/0x1d0
>>>     do_syscall_64+0x95/0x520
>>>     entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>>>
>>> To avoid such a circular locking dependency problem, we have to
>>> call housekeeping_update() without holding the cpus_read_lock()
>>> and cpuset_mutex. One way to do that is to introduce a new top level
>>> isolcpus_update_mutex which will be acquired first if the set of isolated
>>> CPUs may have to be updated. This new isolcpus_update_mutex will provide
>>> the need mutual exclusion without the need to hold cpus_read_lock().
>>>
>>> As cpus_read_lock() is now no longer held when
>>> tmigr_isolated_exclude_cpumask() is called, it needs to acquire it
>>> directly.
>>>
>>> The lockdep_is_cpuset_held() is also updated to check the new
>>> isolcpus_update_mutex.
>>>
>> I worry about the issue:
>>
>> CPU1                CPU2
>> rmdir
>> css->ss->css_killed(css);           
>> cpuset_css_killed
>>                 __update_isolation_cpumasks
>>                 cpuset_full_unlock
>> css->flags |= CSS_DYING;
>> css_clear_dir(css);
>> ...
>> // offline and free do not
>> // get isolcpus_update_mutex
>> cpuset_css_offline
>> cpuset_css_free
>>                 cpuset_full_lock
>>                 ...
>>                 // UAF?
>>

Hi, Longman,

In this patch, I noticed that cpuset_css_offline and cpuset_css_free do not
acquire the isolcpus_update_mutex. This could potentially lead to a UAF issue.

> That is the reason why I add a new top-level isolcpus_update_mutex.
> cpuset_css_killed() and the update_isolation_cpumasks()'s unlock/lock sequence
> will have to acquire this isolcpus_update_mutex first.
> 

However, simply adding isolcpus_update_mutex to cpuset_css_killed and
update_isolation_cpumasks may not be sufficient.

As I mentioned, the path that calls __update_isolation_cpumasks may first
acquire isolcpus_update_mutex and cpuset_full_lock, but once cpuset_css_killed
is completed, it will release the “full” lock and then attempt to reacquire it
later. During this intermediate period, the cpuset may have already been freed,
because cpuset_css_offline and cpuset_css_free do not currently acquire the
isolcpus_update_mutex.

> As long as all the possible paths (except CPU hotplug) that can call into
> update_isolation_cpumasks() has acquired isolcpus_update_mutex, it will block
> cpuset_css_killed() from completing. Note that I add a
> "lockdep_assert_held(&isolcpus_update_mutex);" in update_isolation_cpumasks().
> 
-- 
Best regards,
Ridong


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ