| 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: <CA+h21hr_epEqWukZMQmZ2ecS9Y0yvX9mzR3g3OA39rg_96FfnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:40:03 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot+f3a0e80c34b3fc28ac5e@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net: change addr_list_lock back to static key
Hi Cong, Taehee,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 00:54, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The dynamic key update for addr_list_lock still causes troubles,
> for example the following race condition still exists:
>
> CPU 0: CPU 1:
> (RCU read lock) (RTNL lock)
> dev_mc_seq_show() netdev_update_lockdep_key()
> -> lockdep_unregister_key()
> -> netif_addr_lock_bh()
>
> because lockdep doesn't provide an API to update it atomically.
> Therefore, we have to move it back to static keys and use subclass
> for nest locking like before.
>
> In commit 1a33e10e4a95 ("net: partially revert dynamic lockdep key
> changes"), I already reverted most parts of commit ab92d68fc22f
> ("net: core: add generic lockdep keys").
>
> This patch reverts the rest and also part of commit f3b0a18bb6cb
> ("net: remove unnecessary variables and callback"). After this
> patch, addr_list_lock changes back to using static keys and
> subclasses to satisfy lockdep. Thanks to dev->lower_level, we do
> not have to change back to ->ndo_get_lock_subclass().
>
> And hopefully this reduces some syzbot lockdep noises too.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+f3a0e80c34b3fc28ac5e@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Cc: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 --
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_options.c | 2 --
> drivers/net/hamradio/bpqether.c | 2 ++
> drivers/net/macsec.c | 5 ++++
> drivers/net/macvlan.c | 13 ++++++--
> drivers/net/vxlan.c | 4 +--
> .../net/wireless/intersil/hostap/hostap_hw.c | 3 ++
> include/linux/netdevice.h | 12 +++++---
> net/8021q/vlan_dev.c | 8 +++--
> net/batman-adv/soft-interface.c | 2 ++
> net/bridge/br_device.c | 8 +++++
> net/core/dev.c | 30 ++++++++++---------
> net/core/dev_addr_lists.c | 12 ++++----
> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 1 -
> net/dsa/master.c | 4 +++
> net/netrom/af_netrom.c | 2 ++
> net/rose/af_rose.c | 2 ++
> 17 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
It's me with the stacked DSA devices again:
[ 11.424642] ============================================
[ 11.429967] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[ 11.435295] 5.8.0-rc1-00133-g923e4b5032dd-dirty #208 Not tainted
[ 11.441319] --------------------------------------------
[ 11.446646] dhcpcd/323 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 11.451362] ffff000066dd4268
(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at:
dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
[ 11.460713]
[ 11.460713] but task is already holding lock:
[ 11.466561] ffff00006608c268
(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at:
dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
[ 11.475905]
[ 11.475905] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 11.482450] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 11.482450]
[ 11.488386] CPU0
[ 11.490833] ----
[ 11.493280] lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);
[ 11.498347] lock(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1);
[ 11.503413]
[ 11.503413] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 11.503413]
[ 11.509349] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[ 11.509349]
[ 11.516158] 3 locks held by dhcpcd/323:
[ 11.520001] #0: ffffdbd1381dda18 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
rtnl_lock+0x24/0x30
[ 11.527688] #1: ffff00006614b268 (_xmit_ETHER){+...}-{2:2}, at:
dev_set_rx_mode+0x28/0x48
[ 11.535987] #2: ffff00006608c268
(&dsa_master_addr_list_lock_key/1){+...}-{2:2}, at:
dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
[ 11.545766]
[ 11.545766] stack backtrace:
[ 11.564098] Call trace:
[ 11.566549] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e0
[ 11.570220] show_stack+0x20/0x30
[ 11.573544] dump_stack+0xec/0x158
[ 11.576955] __lock_acquire+0xca0/0x2398
[ 11.580886] lock_acquire+0xe8/0x440
[ 11.584469] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x64/0x90
[ 11.588749] dev_mc_sync+0x44/0x90
[ 11.592159] dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
[ 11.596438] __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
[ 11.600369] dev_mc_sync+0x84/0x90
[ 11.603778] dsa_slave_set_rx_mode+0x34/0x50
[ 11.608057] __dev_set_rx_mode+0x60/0xa0
[ 11.611989] dev_set_rx_mode+0x30/0x48
[ 11.615745] __dev_open+0x10c/0x180
[ 11.619240] __dev_change_flags+0x170/0x1c8
[ 11.623432] dev_change_flags+0x2c/0x70
[ 11.627279] devinet_ioctl+0x774/0x878
[ 11.631036] inet_ioctl+0x348/0x3b0
[ 11.634532] sock_do_ioctl+0x50/0x310
[ 11.638202] sock_ioctl+0x1f8/0x580
[ 11.641698] ksys_ioctl+0xb0/0xf0
[ 11.645019] __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x28/0x38
[ 11.648951] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x7c/0x180
[ 11.653753] do_el0_svc+0x2c/0x98
[ 11.657075] el0_sync_handler+0x9c/0x1b8
[ 11.661005] el0_sync+0x158/0x180
Could you please share some suggestions?
Thanks,
-Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists