| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:30:09 +0000
From: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
To: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...csson.com"
<parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...csson.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] tipc: eliminate possible recursive locking detected
by LOCKDEP
Acked-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
///jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
> Sent: October 11, 2018 7:58 AM
> To: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>; dvyukov@...gle.com
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...csson.com;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; tipc-
> discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [PATCH net] tipc: eliminate possible recursive locking detected by
> LOCKDEP
>
> When booting kernel with LOCKDEP option, below warning info was found:
>
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 4.19.0-rc7+ #14 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> 00000000dcfc0fc8 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at: spin_lock_bh
> include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
> 00000000dcfc0fc8 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
> tipc_link_reset+0x125/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:850
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at: spin_lock_bh
> include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
> 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
> tipc_link_reset+0xfa/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:849
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#4);
> lock(&(&list->lock)->rlock#4);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> #0: 00000000f7539d34 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at:
> register_pernet_subsys+0x19/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1051
> #1: 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
> spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
> #1: 00000000cbb9b036 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#4){+...}, at:
> tipc_link_reset+0xfa/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:849
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc7+ #14 Hardware name:
> QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014 Call Trace:
> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
> dump_stack+0x1af/0x295 lib/dump_stack.c:113 print_deadlock_bug
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1759 [inline] check_deadlock
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1803 [inline] validate_chain
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2399 [inline]
> __lock_acquire+0xf1e/0x3c60 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3411
> lock_acquire+0x1db/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3900
> __raw_spin_lock_bh include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:135 [inline]
> _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x31/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:168 spin_lock_bh
> include/linux/spinlock.h:334 [inline]
> tipc_link_reset+0x125/0xdf0 net/tipc/link.c:850
> tipc_link_bc_create+0xb5/0x1f0 net/tipc/link.c:526
> tipc_bcast_init+0x59b/0xab0 net/tipc/bcast.c:521
> tipc_init_net+0x472/0x610 net/tipc/core.c:82
> ops_init+0xf7/0x520 net/core/net_namespace.c:129
> __register_pernet_operations net/core/net_namespace.c:940 [inline]
> register_pernet_operations+0x453/0xac0 net/core/net_namespace.c:1011
> register_pernet_subsys+0x28/0x40 net/core/net_namespace.c:1052
> tipc_init+0x83/0x104 net/tipc/core.c:140 do_one_initcall+0x109/0x70a
> init/main.c:885 do_initcall_level init/main.c:953 [inline] do_initcalls
> init/main.c:961 [inline] do_basic_setup init/main.c:979 [inline]
> kernel_init_freeable+0x4bd/0x57f init/main.c:1144
> kernel_init+0x13/0x180 init/main.c:1063
> ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:413
>
> The reason why the noise above was complained by LOCKDEP is because we
> nested to hold l->wakeupq.lock and l->inputq->lock in tipc_link_reset
> function. In fact it's unnecessary to move skb buffer from l->wakeupq queue
> to l->inputq queue while holding the two locks at the same time.
> Instead, we can move skb buffers in l->wakeupq queue to a temporary list
> first and then move the buffers of the temporary list to l->inputq queue,
> which is also safe for us.
>
> Fixes: 3f32d0be6c16 ("tipc: lock wakeup & inputq at tipc_link_reset()")
> Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
> ---
> net/tipc/link.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/tipc/link.c b/net/tipc/link.c index fb886b5..1d21ae4 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/link.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/link.c
> @@ -843,14 +843,21 @@ static void link_prepare_wakeup(struct tipc_link *l)
>
> void tipc_link_reset(struct tipc_link *l) {
> + struct sk_buff_head list;
> +
> + __skb_queue_head_init(&list);
> +
> l->in_session = false;
> l->session++;
> l->mtu = l->advertised_mtu;
> +
> spin_lock_bh(&l->wakeupq.lock);
> + skb_queue_splice_init(&l->wakeupq, &list);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&l->wakeupq.lock);
> +
> spin_lock_bh(&l->inputq->lock);
> - skb_queue_splice_init(&l->wakeupq, l->inputq);
> + skb_queue_splice_init(&list, l->inputq);
> spin_unlock_bh(&l->inputq->lock);
> - spin_unlock_bh(&l->wakeupq.lock);
>
> __skb_queue_purge(&l->transmq);
> __skb_queue_purge(&l->deferdq);
> --
> 2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists