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  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]
Date:   Sat, 29 Aug 2020 15:13:23 -0700
From:   Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <daniel@...earbox.net>, <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        <bpoirier@...e.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <hannes@...xchg.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add sleepable tests



On 8/27/20 3:01 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> 
> Modify few tests to sanity test sleepable bpf functionality.
> 
> Running 'bench trig-fentry-sleep' vs 'bench trig-fentry' and 'perf report':
> sleepable with SRCU:
>     3.86%  bench     [k] __srcu_read_unlock
>     3.22%  bench     [k] __srcu_read_lock
>     0.92%  bench     [k] bpf_prog_740d4210cdcd99a3_bench_trigger_fentry_sleep
>     0.50%  bench     [k] bpf_trampoline_10297
>     0.26%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_exit_sleepable
>     0.21%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable
> 
> sleepable with RCU_TRACE:
>     0.79%  bench     [k] bpf_prog_740d4210cdcd99a3_bench_trigger_fentry_sleep
>     0.72%  bench     [k] bpf_trampoline_10381
>     0.31%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_exit_sleepable
>     0.29%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable
> 
> non-sleepable with RCU:
>     0.88%  bench     [k] bpf_prog_740d4210cdcd99a3_bench_trigger_fentry
>     0.84%  bench     [k] bpf_trampoline_10297
>     0.13%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_enter
>     0.12%  bench     [k] __bpf_prog_exit
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Acked-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bench.c           |  2 +
>   .../selftests/bpf/benchs/bench_trigger.c      | 17 +++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_lsm.c       |  9 +++
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c       | 66 ++++++++++++++++++-
>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/trigger_bench.c       |  7 ++
>   5 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
[...]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
> index b4598d4bc4f7..49fa6ca99755 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm.c
> @@ -9,16 +9,41 @@
>   #include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>   #include  <errno.h>
>   
> +struct {
> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_ARRAY);
> +	__uint(max_entries, 1);
> +	__type(key, __u32);
> +	__type(value, __u64);
> +} array SEC(".maps");
> +
> +struct {
> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH);
> +	__uint(max_entries, 1);
> +	__type(key, __u32);
> +	__type(value, __u64);
> +} hash SEC(".maps");
> +
> +struct {
> +	__uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_LRU_HASH);
> +	__uint(max_entries, 1);
> +	__type(key, __u32);
> +	__type(value, __u64);
> +} lru_hash SEC(".maps");
> +
>   char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>   
>   int monitored_pid = 0;
>   int mprotect_count = 0;
>   int bprm_count = 0;
>   
> -SEC("lsm/file_mprotect")
> +SEC("lsm.s/file_mprotect")

When running selftest, I hit the following kernel warning:

[  250.871267] ============================================ 

[  250.871902] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 

[  250.872561] 5.9.0-rc1+ #830 Not tainted 

[  250.873166] -------------------------------------------- 

[  250.873991] true/2053 is trying to acquire lock: 

[  250.874715] ffff8fc1f9cd2068 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
__might_fault+0x3e/0x90
[  250.875943] 

[  250.875943] but task is already holding lock: 

[  250.876688] ffff8fc1f9cd2068 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
do_mprotect_pkey+0xb5/0x2f0 

[  250.877978] 

[  250.877978] other info that might help us debug this: 

[  250.878797]  Possible unsafe locking scenario: 

[  250.878797] 

[  250.879708]        CPU0 

[  250.880095]        ---- 

[  250.880482]   lock(&mm->mmap_lock#2); 

[  250.881063]   lock(&mm->mmap_lock#2); 

[  250.881645] 

[  250.881645]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[  250.881645] 

[  250.882559]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation 

[  250.882559]
[  250.883613] 2 locks held by true/2053:
[  250.884194]  #0: ffff8fc1f9cd2068 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
do_mprotect_pkey+0xb5/0x2f0
[  250.885558]  #1: ffffffffbc47b8a0 (rcu_read_lock_trace){....}-{0:0}, 
at: __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable+0x0/0x40
[  250.887062]
[  250.887062] stack backtrace:
[  250.887583] CPU: 1 PID: 2053 Comm: true Not tainted 5.9.0-rc1+ #830
[  250.888546] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), 
BIOS 1.9.3-1.el7.centos 04/01/2014
[  250.889896] Call Trace:
[  250.890222]  dump_stack+0x78/0xa0
[  250.890644]  __lock_acquire.cold.74+0x209/0x2e3
[  250.891350]  lock_acquire+0xba/0x380
[  250.891919]  ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90
[  250.892510]  ? __lock_acquire+0x639/0x20c0
[  250.893150]  __might_fault+0x68/0x90
[  250.893717]  ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90
[  250.894325]  _copy_from_user+0x1e/0xa0
[  250.894946]  bpf_copy_from_user+0x22/0x50
[  250.895581]  bpf_prog_3717002769f30998_test_int_hook+0x76/0x60c
[  250.896446]  ? __bpf_prog_enter_sleepable+0x3c/0x40
[  250.897207]  ? __bpf_prog_exit+0xa0/0xa0
[  250.897819]  bpf_trampoline_18669+0x29/0x1000
[  250.898476]  bpf_lsm_file_mprotect+0x5/0x10
[  250.899133]  security_file_mprotect+0x32/0x50
[  250.899816]  do_mprotect_pkey+0x18a/0x2f0
[  250.900472]  __x64_sys_mprotect+0x1b/0x20
[  250.901107]  do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40
[  250.901670]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[  250.902450] RIP: 0033:0x7fd95c141ef7
[  250.903014] Code: ff 66 90 b8 0b 00 00 00 0f 05 48 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 
01 c3 48 8d 0d 21 c2 2
0 00 f7 d8 89 01 48 83 c8 ff c3 b8 0a 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 
73 01 c3 48 8d 0d 01
c2 20 00 f7 d8 89 01 48 83
[  250.905732] RSP: 002b:00007ffd4c291fe8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 
000000000000000a
[  250.906773] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000005 RCX: 
00007fd95c141ef7
[  250.907866] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000001ff000 RDI: 
00007fd95bf20000
[  250.908906] RBP: 00007ffd4c292320 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 
0000000000000000
[  250.909915] R10: 00007ffd4c291ff0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 
00007fd95c341000
[  250.910919] R13: 00007ffd4c292408 R14: 0000000000000002 R15: 
0000000000000801

Could this be an real issue here?

do_mprotect_pkey() gets a lock of current->mm->mmap_lock
before calling security_file_mprotect(bpf_lsm_file_mprotect).
Later on, when do _copy_to_user(), page fault may happen
and current->mm->mmap_lock might be acquired again and may
have a deadlock here?


>   int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   	     unsigned long reqprot, unsigned long prot, int ret)
>   {
> +	char args[64];
> +	__u32 key = 0;
> +	__u64 *value;
> +
>   	if (ret != 0)
>   		return ret;
>   
> @@ -28,6 +53,18 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   	is_stack = (vma->vm_start <= vma->vm_mm->start_stack &&
>   		    vma->vm_end >= vma->vm_mm->start_stack);
>   
> +	bpf_copy_from_user(args, sizeof(args), (void *)vma->vm_mm->arg_start);
> +
> +	value = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&array, &key);
> +	if (value)
> +		*value = 0;
> +	value = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&hash, &key);
> +	if (value)
> +		*value = 0;
> +	value = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&lru_hash, &key);
> +	if (value)
> +		*value = 0;
> +
>   	if (is_stack && monitored_pid == pid) {
>   		mprotect_count++;
>   		ret = -EPERM;
> @@ -36,7 +73,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(test_int_hook, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
[...]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists