| 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: <20190228150813.10256-48-sashal@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:07:40 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.20 48/81] bpf: fix potential deadlock in bpf_prog_register
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
[ Upstream commit e16ec34039c701594d55d08a5aa49ee3e1abc821 ]
Lockdep found a potential deadlock between cpu_hotplug_lock, bpf_event_mutex, and cpuctx_mutex:
[ 13.007000] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 13.007587] 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477 Not tainted
[ 13.008124] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 13.008624] test_progs/246 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 13.009030] 0000000094160d1d (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}, at: tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.009770]
[ 13.009770] but task is already holding lock:
[ 13.010239] 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[ 13.010877]
[ 13.010877] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 13.010877]
[ 13.011532]
[ 13.011532] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 13.012129]
[ 13.012129] -> #4 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}:
[ 13.012582] perf_event_query_prog_array+0x9b/0x130
[ 13.013016] _perf_ioctl+0x3aa/0x830
[ 13.013354] perf_ioctl+0x2e/0x50
[ 13.013668] do_vfs_ioctl+0x8f/0x6a0
[ 13.014003] ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80
[ 13.014320] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
[ 13.014668] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[ 13.015007] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 13.015469]
[ 13.015469] -> #3 (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+.}:
[ 13.015910] perf_event_init_cpu+0x5a/0x90
[ 13.016291] perf_event_init+0x1b2/0x1de
[ 13.016654] start_kernel+0x2b8/0x42a
[ 13.016995] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
[ 13.017382]
[ 13.017382] -> #2 (pmus_lock){+.+.}:
[ 13.017794] perf_event_init_cpu+0x21/0x90
[ 13.018172] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xb3/0x960
[ 13.018573] _cpu_up+0xa7/0x140
[ 13.018871] do_cpu_up+0xa4/0xc0
[ 13.019178] smp_init+0xcd/0xd2
[ 13.019483] kernel_init_freeable+0x123/0x24f
[ 13.019878] kernel_init+0xa/0x110
[ 13.020201] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
[ 13.020541]
[ 13.020541] -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
[ 13.021051] static_key_slow_inc+0xe/0x20
[ 13.021424] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x28c/0x300
[ 13.021891] perf_trace_event_init+0x11f/0x250
[ 13.022297] perf_trace_init+0x6b/0xa0
[ 13.022644] perf_tp_event_init+0x25/0x40
[ 13.023011] perf_try_init_event+0x6b/0x90
[ 13.023386] perf_event_alloc+0x9a8/0xc40
[ 13.023754] __do_sys_perf_event_open+0x1dd/0xd30
[ 13.024173] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[ 13.024519] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 13.024968]
[ 13.024968] -> #0 (tracepoints_mutex){+.+.}:
[ 13.025434] __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[ 13.025764] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.026215] bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60
[ 13.026584] bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130
[ 13.027042] __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90
[ 13.027389] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[ 13.027727] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 13.028171]
[ 13.028171] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 13.028171]
[ 13.028807] Chain exists of:
[ 13.028807] tracepoints_mutex --> &cpuctx_mutex --> bpf_event_mutex
[ 13.028807]
[ 13.029666] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 13.029666]
[ 13.030140] CPU0 CPU1
[ 13.030510] ---- ----
[ 13.030875] lock(bpf_event_mutex);
[ 13.031166] lock(&cpuctx_mutex);
[ 13.031645] lock(bpf_event_mutex);
[ 13.032135] lock(tracepoints_mutex);
[ 13.032441]
[ 13.032441] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 13.032441]
[ 13.032911] 1 lock held by test_progs/246:
[ 13.033239] #0: 00000000d663ef86 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[ 13.033909]
[ 13.033909] stack backtrace:
[ 13.034258] CPU: 1 PID: 246 Comm: test_progs Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422-dirty #477
[ 13.034964] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014
[ 13.035657] Call Trace:
[ 13.035859] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b
[ 13.036130] print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x1ce/0x1db
[ 13.036526] __lock_acquire+0x1158/0x1350
[ 13.036852] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190
[ 13.037154] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190
[ 13.037447] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.037876] __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[ 13.038167] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.038600] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.039028] ? __mutex_lock+0x86/0x970
[ 13.039337] ? __mutex_lock+0x24a/0x970
[ 13.039649] ? bpf_probe_register+0x1d/0x60
[ 13.039992] ? __bpf_trace_sched_wake_idle_without_ipi+0x10/0x10
[ 13.040478] ? tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.040906] tracepoint_probe_register_prio+0x2d/0x300
[ 13.041325] bpf_probe_register+0x40/0x60
[ 13.041649] bpf_raw_tracepoint_open.isra.34+0xa4/0x130
[ 13.042068] ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90
[ 13.042374] __do_sys_bpf+0x94f/0x1a90
[ 13.042678] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180
[ 13.042975] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 13.043382] RIP: 0033:0x7f23b10a07f9
[ 13.045155] RSP: 002b:00007ffdef42fdd8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141
[ 13.045759] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffdef42ff70 RCX: 00007f23b10a07f9
[ 13.046326] RDX: 0000000000000070 RSI: 00007ffdef42fe10 RDI: 0000000000000011
[ 13.046893] RBP: 00007ffdef42fdf0 R08: 0000000000000038 R09: 00007ffdef42fe10
[ 13.047462] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000000
[ 13.048029] R13: 0000000000000016 R14: 00007f23b1db4690 R15: 0000000000000000
Since tracepoints_mutex will be taken in tracepoint_probe_register/unregister()
there is no need to take bpf_event_mutex too.
bpf_event_mutex is protecting modifications to prog array used in kprobe/perf bpf progs.
bpf_raw_tracepoints don't need to take this mutex.
Fixes: c4f6699dfcb8 ("bpf: introduce BPF_RAW_TRACEPOINT")
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 14 ++------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index 9864a35c8bb57..6c28d519447d1 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -1158,22 +1158,12 @@ static int __bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *
int bpf_probe_register(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog)
{
- int err;
-
- mutex_lock(&bpf_event_mutex);
- err = __bpf_probe_register(btp, prog);
- mutex_unlock(&bpf_event_mutex);
- return err;
+ return __bpf_probe_register(btp, prog);
}
int bpf_probe_unregister(struct bpf_raw_event_map *btp, struct bpf_prog *prog)
{
- int err;
-
- mutex_lock(&bpf_event_mutex);
- err = tracepoint_probe_unregister(btp->tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func, prog);
- mutex_unlock(&bpf_event_mutex);
- return err;
+ return tracepoint_probe_unregister(btp->tp, (void *)btp->bpf_func, prog);
}
int bpf_get_perf_event_info(const struct perf_event *event, u32 *prog_id,
--
2.19.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists