On 1/28/20 8:39 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:50 AM syzbot
<syzbot+61cba5033e2072d61806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
syzbot has found a reproducer for the following crash on:
HEAD commit: b0be0eff Merge tag 'x86-pti-2020-01-28' of git://git.kerne..
git tree: upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1432aebee00000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=9784e57c96a92f20
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=61cba5033e2072d61806
compiler: gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=10088e95e00000
C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=13fa605ee00000
IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+61cba5033e2072d61806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
=====================================================
WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
5.5.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
-----------------------------------------------------
syz-executor305/10624 [HC0[0]:SC0[2]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire:
ffff888098c14098 (&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
ffff888098c14098 (&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: sidtab_sid2str_put.part.0+0x36/0x880 security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c:533
and this task is already holding:
ffffffff89865770 (&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
ffffffff89865770 (&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.}, at: nf_conntrack_lock+0x17/0x70 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:91
which would create a new lock dependency:
(&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.} -> (&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
(&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.}
... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at:
lock_acquire+0x190/0x410 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4484
__raw_spin_lock include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:142 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:151
spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
nf_conntrack_lock+0x17/0x70 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:91
...
to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
(&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
...
lock_acquire+0x190/0x410 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4484
__raw_spin_lock include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:142 [inline]
_raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:151
spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
sidtab_sid2str_put.part.0+0x36/0x880 security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c:533
sidtab_sid2str_put+0xa0/0xc0 security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c:566
sidtab_entry_to_string security/selinux/ss/services.c:1279 [inline]
sidtab_entry_to_string+0xf2/0x110 security/selinux/ss/services.c:1266
security_sid_to_context_core+0x2c6/0x3c0 security/selinux/ss/services.c:1361
security_sid_to_context+0x34/0x40 security/selinux/ss/services.c:1384
avc_audit_post_callback+0x102/0x790 security/selinux/avc.c:709
common_lsm_audit+0x5ac/0x1e00 security/lsm_audit.c:466
slow_avc_audit+0x16a/0x1f0 security/selinux/avc.c:782
avc_audit security/selinux/include/avc.h:140 [inline]
avc_has_perm+0x543/0x610 security/selinux/avc.c:1185
inode_has_perm+0x1a8/0x230 security/selinux/hooks.c:1631
selinux_mmap_file+0x10a/0x1d0 security/selinux/hooks.c:3701
security_mmap_file+0xa4/0x1e0 security/security.c:1482
vm_mmap_pgoff+0xf0/0x230 mm/util.c:502
...
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock);
local_irq_disable();
lock(&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock);
lock(&(&s->cache_lock)->rlock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
4 locks held by syz-executor305/10624:
#0: ffffffff8c1acc68 (&table[i].mutex){+.+.}, at: nfnl_lock net/netfilter/nfnetlink.c:62 [inline]
#0: ffffffff8c1acc68 (&table[i].mutex){+.+.}, at: nfnetlink_rcv_msg+0x9ee/0xfb0 net/netfilter/nfnetlink.c:224
#1: ffff8880836415d8 (nlk_cb_mutex-NETFILTER){+.+.}, at: netlink_dump+0xe7/0xfb0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2199
#2: ffffffff89865770 (&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
#2: ffffffff89865770 (&(&nf_conntrack_locks[i])->rlock){+.-.}, at: nf_conntrack_lock+0x17/0x70 net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:91
#3: ffffffff8b7df008 (&selinux_ss.policy_rwlock){.+.?}, at: security_sid_to_context_core+0x1ca/0x3c0 security/selinux/ss/services.c:1344
I think this is going to be tricky to fix due to the differing
contexts from which sidtab_sid2str_put() may be called. We already
have a check for !in_task() in sidtab_sid2str_put(), do we want to add
a check for !in_serving_softirq() too?
No, we should just use spin_lock_irqsave/unlock_irqrestore() IMHO, but
that then means we need to re-evaluate the performance gain of this change.
