On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
> inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
>
> [ 605.374955] ======================================================
> [ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>]
> pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.412300]
> [ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at:
> [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
> 0
> [ 605.427397]
> [ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 605.427397]
> [ 605.435770]
> [ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 605.443396]
> [ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
> [ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
> [ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
> [ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
> [ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
> [ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
> [ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
> [ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
> [ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
> [ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
> [ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
> [ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> [ 605.501496]
> [ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> [ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> [ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> [ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> [ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> [ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> [ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> [ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
If I'm reading this right it's a race between mount and unlink...
that's quite a corner case. :)
> [ 605.547067]
> [ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 605.547067]
> [ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 605.555221]
> [ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 605.565883] ---- ----
> [ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> [ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
> [ 605.581803]
> lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> [ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
I haven't had time to dig much yet, but I wonder if the locking order
on unlink could just be reversed, and the deadlock would go away?
> [ 605.593156]
> [ 605.593156] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 605.593156]
> [ 605.599214] 3 locks held by rm/7298:
> [ 605.602896] #0: (sb_writers#11){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8122e85f>]
> mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
> [ 605.611490] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+...}, at:
> [<ffffffff8121a7dc>] do_unlinkat+0
> x11c/0x2a0
> [ 605.621417] #2: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at:
> [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c
> /0x190
> [ 605.630995]
> [ 605.630995] stack backtrace:
> [ 605.635450] CPU: 7 PID: 7298 Comm: rm Not tainted
> 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1
> [ 605.642999] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
> Z170X-UD5/Z170X-UD5-CF, BIOS F21 01/06/2
> 017
> [ 605.652305] Call Trace:
> [ 605.654814] dump_stack+0x67/0x92
> [ 605.658184] print_circular_bug+0x1e0/0x2e0
> [ 605.662465] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> [ 605.666634] ? retint_kernel+0x2d/0x2d
> [ 605.670456] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.674112] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.677970] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.681818] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> [ 605.685456] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.689791] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.694124] ? vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x190
> [ 605.698310] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> [ 605.702859] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.707021] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> [ 605.711024] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> [ 605.715194] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> [ 605.719275] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> [ 605.724543] RIP: 0033:0x7f8b08073ed7
> [ 605.728676] RSP: 002b:00007ffe70eff628 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX:
> 0000000000000107
> [ 605.736929] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: ffffffff8147ea93 RCX:
> 00007f8b08073ed7
> [ 605.744711] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000001450000 RDI:
> 00000000ffffff9c
> [ 605.752512] RBP: ffffc9000338ff88 R08: 0000000000000003 R09:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 605.760276] R10: 000000000000015e R11: 0000000000000206 R12:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 605.768040] R13: 00007ffe70eff750 R14: 000000000144ff70 R15:
> 0000000001451230
> [ 605.775800] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
>
> Reported-by: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarv...@intel.com>
> Fixes: e9e360b08a44 ("pstore: Protect unlink with read_mutex")
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100234
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarv...@intel.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
> Cc: Anton Vorontsov <an...@enomsg.org>
> Cc: Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com>
> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
> Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # v4.10+
> ---
> fs/pstore/inode.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> fs/pstore/platform.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> index 57c0646479f5..dee5d34d9a64 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,26 @@ static const struct file_operations
> pstore_file_operations = {
> .release = seq_release,
> };
>
> +struct pstore_unlink_work {
> + struct work_struct work;
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> +};
> +
> +static void pstore_unlink_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct pstore_unlink_work *arg = container_of(work, typeof(*arg),
> work);
> + struct dentry *dentry = arg->dentry;
> + struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> + p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
> + d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
> + mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> +
> + dput(dentry);
> + kfree(arg);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * When a file is unlinked from our file system we call the
> * platform driver to erase the record from persistent store.
> @@ -193,20 +213,23 @@ static const struct file_operations
> pstore_file_operations = {
> static int pstore_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> + struct pstore_unlink_work *work;
> int err;
>
> err = pstore_check_syslog_permissions(p);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - if (p->psi->erase) {
> - mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> - p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
> - d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
> - mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> - } else {
> + if (!p->psi->erase)
> return -EPERM;
> - }
> +
> + work = kmalloc(sizeof(*work), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!work)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + work->dentry = dget(dentry);
> + INIT_WORK(&work->work, pstore_unlink_work);
> + schedule_work(&work->work);
>
> return simple_unlink(dir, dentry);
> }
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/platform.c b/fs/pstore/platform.c
> index efab7b64925b..6ffca5ab4782 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/platform.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/platform.c
> @@ -731,6 +731,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pstore_register);
>
> void pstore_unregister(struct pstore_info *psi)
> {
> + flush_scheduled_work();
> +
> if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_PMSG)
> pstore_unregister_pmsg();
> if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_FTRACE)
> --
> 2.11.0
>
If there isn't a shorter solution, then yeah, we can add a worker, but
I'd rather avoid the complexity...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
