On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 21:55 +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> On 2/7/21 7:44 pm, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 17:18 +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> > > Syzbot reports a potential deadlock in do_fcntl:
> > >
> > > ========================================================
> > > WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> > > 5.12.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > syz-executor132/8391 just changed the state of lock:
> > > ffff888015967bf8 (&f->f_owner.lock){.+..}-{2:2}, at: f_getown_ex fs/fcntl.c:211 [inline]
> > > ffff888015967bf8 (&f->f_owner.lock){.+..}-{2:2}, at: do_fcntl+0x8b4/0x1200 fs/fcntl.c:395
> > > but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past:
> > > (&dev->event_lock){-...}-{2:2}
> > >
> > > and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> > >
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > Chain exists of:
> > > &dev->event_lock --> &new->fa_lock --> &f->f_owner.lock
> > >
> > > Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > ---- ----
> > > lock(&f->f_owner.lock);
> > > local_irq_disable();
> > > lock(&dev->event_lock);
> > > lock(&new->fa_lock);
> > > <Interrupt>
> > > lock(&dev->event_lock);
> > >
> > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > >
> > > This happens because there is a lock hierarchy of
> > > &dev->event_lock --> &new->fa_lock --> &f->f_owner.lock
> > > from the following call chain:
> > >
> > > input_inject_event():
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->event_lock,...);
> > > input_handle_event():
> > > input_pass_values():
> > > input_to_handler():
> > > evdev_events():
> > > evdev_pass_values():
> > > spin_lock(&client->buffer_lock);
> > > __pass_event():
> > > kill_fasync():
> > > kill_fasync_rcu():
> > > read_lock(&fa->fa_lock);
> > > send_sigio():
> > > read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock,...);
> > >
> > > However, since &dev->event_lock is HARDIRQ-safe, interrupts have to be
> > > disabled while grabbing &f->f_owner.lock, otherwise we invert the lock
> > > hierarchy.
> > >
> > > Hence, we replace calls to read_lock/read_unlock on &f->f_owner.lock,
> > > with read_lock_irq/read_unlock_irq.
> > >
> >
> > Patches look reasonable overall, but why does this one use read_lock_irq
> > and the other one use read_lock_irqsave? Don't we need to *_irqsasve in
> > both patches?
> >
> >
>
> My thinking was that the functions f_getown_ex and f_getowner_uids are
> only called from do_fcntl, and f_getown is only called from do_fnctl and
> sock_ioctl. do_fnctl itself is only called from syscalls.
>
> For sock_ioctl, the chain is
> compat_sock_ioctl():
> compat_sock_ioctl_trans():
> sock_ioctl()
>
> For both paths, it doesn't seem that interrupts are disabled, so I used
> the *irq variants.
>
> But of course, I might be very mistaken on this, and I'd be happy to
> make the change to *_irqsave.
>
> Also, on further inspection, if these calls should be changed to
> *_irqsave, then I believe the call to write_lock_irq in f_modown (called
> from do_fcntl() --> f_setown() --> __f_setown() --> f_modown()) should
> also be changed to *_irqsave.
>
> There's also a call to write_lock_irq(&fa->fa_lock) in
> fasync_remove_entry and fasync_insert_entry. Whether these should be
> changed as well isn't as clear to me, but since it's safe to do, perhaps
> it makes sense to use *_irqsave for them too. Thoughts?
>
I think your reasoning is probably valid here and we don't need to
save/restore. It wasn't obvious to me until you pointed it out though.
It might be worth a comment, or maybe even this at the top of both
functions:
WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled());
I'll pick these into linux-next soon and plan to merge them for v5.15.
Let me know if you think they need to go in sooner.
> > > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+e6d5398a02c516ce5e70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/fcntl.c | 13 +++++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
> > > index dfc72f15be7f..cf9e81dfa615 100644
> > > --- a/fs/fcntl.c
> > > +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
> > > @@ -150,7 +150,8 @@ void f_delown(struct file *filp)
> > > pid_t f_getown(struct file *filp)
> > > {
> > > pid_t pid = 0;
> > > - read_lock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > +
> > > + read_lock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > if (pid_task(filp->f_owner.pid, filp->f_owner.pid_type)) {
> > > pid = pid_vnr(filp->f_owner.pid);
> > > @@ -158,7 +159,7 @@ pid_t f_getown(struct file *filp)
> > > pid = -pid;
> > > }
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > - read_unlock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > + read_unlock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > return pid;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -208,7 +209,7 @@ static int f_getown_ex(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> > > struct f_owner_ex owner = {};
> > > int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > - read_lock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > + read_lock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > if (pid_task(filp->f_owner.pid, filp->f_owner.pid_type))
> > > owner.pid = pid_vnr(filp->f_owner.pid);
> > > @@ -231,7 +232,7 @@ static int f_getown_ex(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > - read_unlock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > + read_unlock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > >
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > ret = copy_to_user(owner_p, &owner, sizeof(owner));
> > > @@ -249,10 +250,10 @@ static int f_getowner_uids(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg)
> > > uid_t src[2];
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > - read_lock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > + read_lock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > src[0] = from_kuid(user_ns, filp->f_owner.uid);
> > > src[1] = from_kuid(user_ns, filp->f_owner.euid);
> > > - read_unlock(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > > + read_unlock_irq(&filp->f_owner.lock);
> > >
> > > err = put_user(src[0], &dst[0]);
> > > err |= put_user(src[1], &dst[1]);
> >
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
