Hi,
On 12/01/17 09:32, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 11/01/17 19:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following deadlock.
>> On commit 9c763584b7c8911106bb77af7e648bef09af9d80.
>>
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50 Not tainted
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> syz-executor/20805 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (
>> &kvm->lock
>> ){+.+.+.}
>> , at:
>> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
>> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
>> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> CPU0
>> ----
>> lock(&kvm->lock);
>> lock(&kvm->lock);
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>> 2 locks held by syz-executor/20805:
>> #0:(&vcpu->mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
>> [<ffff2000080bcc30>] vcpu_load+0x28/0x1d0
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:143
>> #1:(&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
>> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
>> stack backtrace:
>> CPU: 2 PID: 20805 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted
>> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50
>> Hardware name: Hardkernel ODROID-C2 (DT)
>> Call trace:
>> [<ffff200008090560>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3c8 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:69
>> [<ffff200008090948>] show_stack+0x20/0x30 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:219
>> [< inline >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15
>> [<ffff200008895840>] dump_stack+0x100/0x150 lib/dump_stack.c:51
>> [< inline >] print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1728
>> [< inline >] check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1772
>> [< inline >] validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2250
>> [<ffff2000081c8718>] __lock_acquire+0x1938/0x3440 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3335
>> [<ffff2000081caa84>] lock_acquire+0xdc/0x1d8 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3746
>> [< inline >] __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:521
>> [<ffff200009700004>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x7b8 kernel/locking/mutex.c:621
>> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
>> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
>> [<ffff2000080ec290>] vgic_v2_map_resources+0x218/0x430
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c:295
>> [<ffff2000080ea884>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0xcc/0x108
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:348
>> [< inline >] kvm_vcpu_first_run_init
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:505
>> [<ffff2000080d2768>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0xab8/0xce0
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:591
>> [<ffff2000080c1fec>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x434/0xc08
>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:2557
>> [< inline >] vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:43
>> [<ffff200008450c38>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x128/0xfc0 fs/ioctl.c:679
>> [< inline >] SYSC_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:694
>> [<ffff200008451b78>] SyS_ioctl+0xa8/0xb8 fs/ioctl.c:685
>> [<ffff200008083ef0>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:755
>
> Nice catch, and many thanks for reporting this.
>
> The bug is fairly obvious. Christoffer, what do you think? I don't think
> we need to hold the kvm->lock all the way, but I'd like another pair of
> eyes (the coffee machine is out of order again, and tea doesn't cut it).
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> From 93f80b20fb9351a49ee8b74eed3fc59c84651371 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:56 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Fix deadlock on error handling
>
> Dmitry Vyukov reported that the syzkaller fuzzer triggered a
> deadlock in the vgic setup code when an error was detected, as
> the cleanup code tries to take a lock that is already held by
> the setup code.
>
> The fix is pretty obvious: move the cleaup call after having
> dropped the lock, since not much can happen at that point.
^^^^^^^^
Is that really true? If for instance the calls to
vgic_register_dist_iodev() or kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() in
vgic_v2_map_resources() fail, we leave the function with a half
initialized VGIC (because vgic_init() succeeded). Dropping the lock at
this point without having the GIC cleaned up before sounds a bit
suspicious (I may be wrong on this, though).
Can't we just document that kvm_vgic_destroy() needs to be called with
the kvm->lock held and take the lock around the only other caller
(kvm_arch_destroy_vm() in arch/arm/kvm/arm.c)?
We can then keep holding the lock in the map_resources calls.
Though we might still move the calls to kvm_vgic_destroy() into the
wrapper function as a cleanup (as shown below), just before dropping the
lock.
Cheers,
Andre.
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 4 ++++
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 2 --
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 2 --
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> index 5114391..0e0c295 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> @@ -350,6 +350,10 @@ int kvm_vgic_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
> ret = vgic_v3_map_resources(kvm);
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +
> + if (ret)
> + kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> index 9bab867..834137e 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> @@ -293,8 +293,6 @@ int vgic_v2_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
> dist->ready = true;
>
> out:
> - if (ret)
> - kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> index 7df1b90..a4c7fff 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> @@ -308,8 +308,6 @@ int vgic_v3_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
> dist->ready = true;
>
> out:
> - if (ret)
> - kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
> return ret;
> }
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
