| 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: <20200215105008.21434-1-ap420073@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 10:50:08 +0000
From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: ap420073@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH net v2 1/3] bonding: add missing netdev_update_lockdep_key()
After bond_release(), netdev_update_lockdep_key() should be called.
But both ioctl path and attribute path don't call
netdev_update_lockdep_key().
This patch adds missing netdev_update_lockdep_key().
Test commands:
ip link add bond0 type bond
ip link add bond1 type bond
ifenslave bond0 bond1
ifenslave -d bond0 bond1
ifenslave bond1 bond0
Splat looks like:
[ 29.501182][ T1046] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 29.501945][ T1039] hardirqs last disabled at (1962): [<ffffffffac6c807f>] handle_mm_fault+0x13f/0x700
[ 29.503442][ T1046] 5.5.0+ #322 Not tainted
[ 29.503447][ T1046] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 29.504277][ T1039] softirqs last enabled at (1180): [<ffffffffade00678>] __do_softirq+0x678/0x981
[ 29.505443][ T1046] ifenslave/1046 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 29.505886][ T1039] softirqs last disabled at (1169): [<ffffffffac19c18a>] irq_exit+0x17a/0x1a0
[ 29.509997][ T1046] ffff88805d5da280 (&dev->addr_list_lock_key#3){+...}, at: dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.511243][ T1046]
[ 29.511243][ T1046] but task is already holding lock:
[ 29.512192][ T1046] ffff8880460f2280 (&dev->addr_list_lock_key#4){+...}, at: bond_enslave+0x4482/0x47b0 [bonding]
[ 29.514124][ T1046]
[ 29.514124][ T1046] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 29.514124][ T1046]
[ 29.517297][ T1046]
[ 29.517297][ T1046] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 29.518231][ T1046]
[ 29.518231][ T1046] -> #1 (&dev->addr_list_lock_key#4){+...}:
[ 29.519076][ T1046] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x70
[ 29.519588][ T1046] dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.520208][ T1046] bond_enslave+0x448d/0x47b0 [bonding]
[ 29.520862][ T1046] bond_option_slaves_set+0x1a3/0x370 [bonding]
[ 29.521640][ T1046] __bond_opt_set+0x1ff/0xbb0 [bonding]
[ 29.522438][ T1046] __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2b/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.523251][ T1046] bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x92/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.524082][ T1046] bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x8a/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.524959][ T1046] kernfs_fop_write+0x276/0x410
[ 29.525620][ T1046] vfs_write+0x197/0x4a0
[ 29.526218][ T1046] ksys_write+0x141/0x1d0
[ 29.526818][ T1046] do_syscall_64+0x99/0x4f0
[ 29.527430][ T1046] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 29.528265][ T1046]
[ 29.528265][ T1046] -> #0 (&dev->addr_list_lock_key#3){+...}:
[ 29.529272][ T1046] __lock_acquire+0x2d8d/0x3de0
[ 29.529935][ T1046] lock_acquire+0x164/0x3b0
[ 29.530638][ T1046] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x70
[ 29.531187][ T1046] dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.531790][ T1046] bond_enslave+0x448d/0x47b0 [bonding]
[ 29.532451][ T1046] bond_option_slaves_set+0x1a3/0x370 [bonding]
[ 29.533163][ T1046] __bond_opt_set+0x1ff/0xbb0 [bonding]
[ 29.533789][ T1046] __bond_opt_set_notify+0x2b/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.534595][ T1046] bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x92/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.535500][ T1046] bonding_sysfs_store_option+0x8a/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.536379][ T1046] kernfs_fop_write+0x276/0x410
[ 29.537057][ T1046] vfs_write+0x197/0x4a0
[ 29.537640][ T1046] ksys_write+0x141/0x1d0
[ 29.538251][ T1046] do_syscall_64+0x99/0x4f0
[ 29.538870][ T1046] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
[ 29.539659][ T1046]
[ 29.539659][ T1046] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 29.539659][ T1046]
[ 29.540953][ T1046] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 29.540953][ T1046]
[ 29.541883][ T1046] CPU0 CPU1
[ 29.542540][ T1046] ---- ----
[ 29.543209][ T1046] lock(&dev->addr_list_lock_key#4);
[ 29.543880][ T1046] lock(&dev->addr_list_lock_key#3);
[ 29.544873][ T1046] lock(&dev->addr_list_lock_key#4);
[ 29.545863][ T1046] lock(&dev->addr_list_lock_key#3);
[ 29.546525][ T1046]
[ 29.546525][ T1046] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 29.546525][ T1046]
[ 29.547542][ T1046] 5 locks held by ifenslave/1046:
[ 29.548196][ T1046] #0: ffff88806044c478 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x3bb/0x4a0
[ 29.549248][ T1046] #1: ffff88805af00890 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0x1cf/0x410
[ 29.550343][ T1046] #2: ffff88805b8b54b0 (kn->count#157){.+.+}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0x1f2/0x410
[ 29.551575][ T1046] #3: ffffffffaecf4cf0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}, at: bond_opt_tryset_rtnl+0x5f/0xf0 [bonding]
[ 29.552819][ T1046] #4: ffff8880460f2280 (&dev->addr_list_lock_key#4){+...}, at: bond_enslave+0x4482/0x47b0 [bonding]
[ 29.554175][ T1046]
[ 29.554175][ T1046] stack backtrace:
[ 29.554907][ T1046] CPU: 0 PID: 1046 Comm: ifenslave Not tainted 5.5.0+ #322
[ 29.555854][ T1046] Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
[ 29.557064][ T1046] Call Trace:
[ 29.557504][ T1046] dump_stack+0x96/0xdb
[ 29.558054][ T1046] check_noncircular+0x371/0x450
[ 29.558723][ T1046] ? print_circular_bug.isra.35+0x310/0x310
[ 29.559486][ T1046] ? hlock_class+0x130/0x130
[ 29.560100][ T1046] ? __lock_acquire+0x2d8d/0x3de0
[ 29.560761][ T1046] __lock_acquire+0x2d8d/0x3de0
[ 29.561366][ T1046] ? register_lock_class+0x14d0/0x14d0
[ 29.562045][ T1046] ? find_held_lock+0x39/0x1d0
[ 29.562641][ T1046] lock_acquire+0x164/0x3b0
[ 29.563199][ T1046] ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.563872][ T1046] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x70
[ 29.564464][ T1046] ? dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.565146][ T1046] dev_mc_sync_multiple+0x95/0x120
[ 29.565793][ T1046] bond_enslave+0x448d/0x47b0 [bonding]
[ 29.566487][ T1046] ? bond_update_slave_arr+0x940/0x940 [bonding]
[ 29.567279][ T1046] ? bstr_printf+0xc20/0xc20
[ 29.567857][ T1046] ? stack_trace_consume_entry+0x160/0x160
[ 29.568614][ T1046] ? deactivate_slab.isra.77+0x2c5/0x800
[ 29.569320][ T1046] ? check_chain_key+0x236/0x5d0
[ 29.569939][ T1046] ? sscanf+0x93/0xc0
[ 29.570442][ T1046] ? vsscanf+0x1e20/0x1e20
[ 29.571003][ T1046] bond_option_slaves_set+0x1a3/0x370 [bonding]
[ ... ]
Fixes: ab92d68fc22f ("net: core: add generic lockdep keys")
Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
- This patch isn't changed
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 ++
drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 48d5ec770b94..1e9d5d35fc78 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3640,6 +3640,8 @@ static int bond_do_ioctl(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct ifreq *ifr, int cmd
case BOND_RELEASE_OLD:
case SIOCBONDRELEASE:
res = bond_release(bond_dev, slave_dev);
+ if (!res)
+ netdev_update_lockdep_key(slave_dev);
break;
case BOND_SETHWADDR_OLD:
case SIOCBONDSETHWADDR:
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c
index ddb3916d3506..215c10923289 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c
@@ -1398,6 +1398,8 @@ static int bond_option_slaves_set(struct bonding *bond,
case '-':
slave_dbg(bond->dev, dev, "Releasing interface\n");
ret = bond_release(bond->dev, dev);
+ if (!ret)
+ netdev_update_lockdep_key(dev);
break;
default:
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists