On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> while booting AM437x device, the following splat
> triggered:
>
> [ 12.005238] ===============================
> [ 12.009749] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [ 12.014116] 4.2.0-next-20150831 #1154 Not tainted
> [ 12.019050] -------------------------------
> [ 12.023408] security/device_cgroup.c:405 device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization!
> [ 12.033576] other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 12.041942] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> [ 12.048796] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 12.052700] #0: (sb_writers#7){.+.+.+}, at: [<c017af84>] __sb_start_write+0x8c/0xb0
> [ 12.060954] #1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01f1600>] kernfs_fop_write+0x50/0x1b8
> [ 12.069085] #2: (s_active#30){++++.+}, at: [<c01f1608>] kernfs_fop_write+0x58/0x1b8
> [ 12.077310] #3: (devcgroup_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0317bfc>] devcgroup_access_write+0x20/0x658
> [ 12.086575] stack backtrace:
> [ 12.091124] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Not tainted 4.2.0-next-20150831 #1154
> [ 12.098609] Hardware name: Generic AM43 (Flattened Device Tree)
> [ 12.104807] [<c001770c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0013a58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [ 12.112924] [<c0013a58>] (show_stack) from [<c034f014>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c)
> [ 12.120491] [<c034f014>] (dump_stack) from [<c0317a04>] (verify_new_ex+0xc4/0xdc)
> [ 12.128326] [<c0317a04>] (verify_new_ex) from [<c0317f50>] (devcgroup_access_write+0x374/0x658)
> [ 12.137426] [<c0317f50>] (devcgroup_access_write) from [<c00d2800>] (cgroup_file_write+0x28/0x1bc)
> [ 12.146796] [<c00d2800>] (cgroup_file_write) from [<c01f1670>] (kernfs_fop_write+0xc0/0x1b8)
> [ 12.155620] [<c01f1670>] (kernfs_fop_write) from [<c0177c94>] (__vfs_write+0x1c/0xd8)
> [ 12.163783] [<c0177c94>] (__vfs_write) from [<c0178594>] (vfs_write+0x90/0x16c)
> [ 12.171426] [<c0178594>] (vfs_write) from [<c0178db4>] (SyS_write+0x44/0x9c)
> [ 12.178806] [<c0178db4>] (SyS_write) from [<c000f680>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c)
>
> Fix it by making sure rcu_read_lock() is held
> around calls to parent_has_perm().
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
This cleared up the splat on all my machines and I don't see any other
side effects (even with lockdep enabled). Thanks!
Tested-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
josh
> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> - move rcu_read_lock/unlock to wrap parent_has_perm()
>
> security/device_cgroup.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
> index 73455089feef..dd77ed206fa4 100644
> --- a/security/device_cgroup.c
> +++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
> @@ -608,6 +608,7 @@ static int devcgroup_update_access(struct dev_cgroup *devcgroup,
> int count, rc = 0;
> struct dev_exception_item ex;
> struct dev_cgroup *parent = css_to_devcgroup(devcgroup->css.parent);
> + int ret;
>
> if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> return -EPERM;
> @@ -734,7 +735,11 @@ static int devcgroup_update_access(struct dev_cgroup *devcgroup,
> break;
> }
>
> - if (!parent_has_perm(devcgroup, &ex))
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + ret = parent_has_perm(devcgroup, &ex);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + if (!ret)
> return -EPERM;
> rc = dev_exception_add(devcgroup, &ex);
> break;
> --
> 2.5.0
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
