On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:51 AM Jun Miao <jun.miao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/2/21 10:53 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
> >
> >> Add KASAN maintainers
> >>
> >> On 11/1/21 6:31 PM, Jun Miao wrote:
> >>> The default kasan_record_aux_stack() calls stack_depot_save() with GFP_NOWAIT,
> >>> which in turn can then call alloc_pages(GFP_NOWAIT, ...). In general, however,
> >>> it is not even possible to use either GFP_ATOMIC nor GFP_NOWAIT in certain
> >>> non-preemptive contexts/RT kernel including raw_spin_locks (see gfp.h and ab00db216c9c7).
> >>>
> >>> Fix it by instructing stackdepot to not expand stack storage via alloc_pages()
> >>> in case it runs out by using kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc().
> >>>
> >>> Jianwei Hu reported:
> >>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:969
> >>> in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 15319, name: python3
> >>> INFO: lockdep is turned off.
> >>> irq event stamp: 0
> >>> hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> >>> hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffffff856c8b13>] copy_process+0xaf3/0x2590
> >>> softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff856c8b13>] copy_process+0xaf3/0x2590
> >>> softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> >>> CPU: 6 PID: 15319 Comm: python3 Tainted: G W O 5.15-rc7-preempt-rt #1
> >>> Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-E300-9A-8C/A2SDi-8C-HLN4F, BIOS 1.1b 12/17/2018
> >>> Call Trace:
> >>> show_stack+0x52/0x58
> >>> dump_stack+0xa1/0xd6
> >>> ___might_sleep.cold+0x11c/0x12d
> >>> rt_spin_lock+0x3f/0xc0
> >>> rmqueue+0x100/0x1460
> >>> rmqueue+0x100/0x1460
> >>> mark_usage+0x1a0/0x1a0
> >>> ftrace_graph_ret_addr+0x2a/0xb0
> >>> rmqueue_pcplist.constprop.0+0x6a0/0x6a0
> >>> __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
> >>> __zone_watermark_ok+0x114/0x270
> >>> get_page_from_freelist+0x148/0x630
> >>> is_module_text_address+0x32/0xa0
> >>> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x2f6/0x790
> >>> __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x12d0/0x12d0
> >>> create_prof_cpu_mask+0x30/0x30
> >>> alloc_pages_current+0xb1/0x150
> >>> stack_depot_save+0x39f/0x490
> >>> kasan_save_stack+0x42/0x50
> >>> kasan_save_stack+0x23/0x50
> >>> kasan_record_aux_stack+0xa9/0xc0
> >>> __call_rcu+0xff/0x9c0
> >>> call_rcu+0xe/0x10
> >>> put_object+0x53/0x70
> >>> __delete_object+0x7b/0x90
> >>> kmemleak_free+0x46/0x70
> >>> slab_free_freelist_hook+0xb4/0x160
> >>> kfree+0xe5/0x420
> >>> kfree_const+0x17/0x30
> >>> kobject_cleanup+0xaa/0x230
> >>> kobject_put+0x76/0x90
> >>> netdev_queue_update_kobjects+0x17d/0x1f0
> >>> ... ...
> >>> ksys_write+0xd9/0x180
> >>> __x64_sys_write+0x42/0x50
> >>> do_syscall_64+0x38/0x50
> >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 84109ab58590 ("rcu: Record kvfree_call_rcu() call stack for KASAN")
> >>> Fixes: 26e760c9a7c8 ("rcu: kasan: record and print call_rcu() call stack")
> >>> Reported-by: Jianwei Hu <jianwei.hu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jun Miao <jun.miao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>> index 8270e58cd0f3..2c1034580f15 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> >>> @@ -3026,7 +3026,7 @@ __call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >>> head->func = func;
> >>> head->next = NULL;
> >>> local_irq_save(flags);
> >>> - kasan_record_aux_stack(head);
> >>> + kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc(head);
> >>> rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
> >>>
> >>> /* Add the callback to our list. */
> >>> @@ -3591,7 +3591,7 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> >>> return;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - kasan_record_aux_stack(ptr);
> >>> + kasan_record_aux_stack_noalloc(ptr);
> >>> success = add_ptr_to_bulk_krc_lock(&krcp, &flags, ptr, !head);
> >>> if (!success) {
> >>> run_page_cache_worker(krcp);
> > Yep an allocation is tricky here. This change looks correct to me at
> > least from the point that it does not allocate.
> >
> > --
> > Uladzislau Rezki
>
> Thanks your approval. Could you like to give me a review?
>
Reviewed-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Uladzislau Rezki
