Searched hist:"63 f818f4" (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | pid.h | 63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
|
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/ |
| H A D | pid.c | 63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/proc/ |
| H A D | base.c | 63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
63f818f4 Tue Apr 07 09:43:04 CDT 2020 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> proc: Use a dedicated lock in struct pid
syzbot wrote:
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.6.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/1/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898090d8 (tasklist_lock){.+.?}-{2:2}, at: send_sigurg+0x9f/0x320 fs/fcntl.c:840
> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&pid->wait_pidfd){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> lock(&pid->wait_pidfd);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 4 locks held by swapper/1/0:
The problem is that because wait_pidfd.lock is taken under the tasklist
lock. It must always be taken with irqs disabled as tasklist_lock can be
taken from interrupt context and if wait_pidfd.lock was already taken this
would create a lock order inversion.
Oleg suggested just disabling irqs where I have added extra calls to
wait_pidfd.lock. That should be safe and I think the code will eventually
do that. It was rightly pointed out by Christian that sharing the
wait_pidfd.lock was a premature optimization.
It is also true that my pre-merge window testing was insufficient. So
remove the premature optimization and give struct pid a dedicated lock of
it's own for struct pid things. I have verified that lockdep sees all 3
paths where we take the new pid->lock and lockdep does not complain.
It is my current day dream that one day pid->lock can be used to guard the
task lists as well and then the tasklist_lock won't need to be held to
deliver signals. That will require taking pid->lock with irqs disabled.
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/00000000000011d66805a25cd73f@google.com/
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Reported-by: syzbot+343f75cdeea091340956@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+832aabf700bc3ec920b9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+f675f964019f884dbd0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+a9fb1457d720a55d6dc5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 7bc3e6e55acf ("proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc")
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
|