[added to the 4.1 stable tree] padata: avoid race in reordering

[Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>

This patch has been added to the  stable tree. If you have any
objections, please let us know.

===============

[ Upstream commit de5540d088fe97ad583cc7d396586437b32149a5 ]

Under extremely heavy uses of padata, crashes occur, and with list
debugging turned on, this happens instead:

[87487.298728] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 882 at lib/list_debug.c:33
__list_add+0xae/0x130
[87487.301868] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next
(ffffb17abfc043d0), but was ffff8dba70872c80. (prev=ffff8dba70872b00).
[87487.339011]  [<ffffffff9a53d075>] dump_stack+0x68/0xa3
[87487.342198]  [<ffffffff99e119a1>] ? console_unlock+0x281/0x6d0
[87487.345364]  [<ffffffff99d6b91f>] __warn+0xff/0x140
[87487.348513]  [<ffffffff99d6b9aa>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50
[87487.351659]  [<ffffffff9a58b5de>] __list_add+0xae/0x130
[87487.354772]  [<ffffffff9add5094>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x70
[87487.357915]  [<ffffffff99eefd66>] padata_reorder+0x1e6/0x420
[87487.361084]  [<ffffffff99ef0055>] padata_do_serial+0xa5/0x120

padata_reorder calls list_add_tail with the list to which its adding
locked, which seems correct:

spin_lock(&squeue->serial.lock);
list_add_tail(&padata->list, &squeue->serial.list);
spin_unlock(&squeue->serial.lock);

This therefore leaves only place where such inconsistency could occur:
if padata->list is added at the same time on two different threads.
This pdata pointer comes from the function call to
padata_get_next(pd), which has in it the following block:

next_queue = per_cpu_ptr(pd->pqueue, cpu);
padata = NULL;
reorder = &next_queue->reorder;
if (!list_empty(&reorder->list)) {
       padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
                           struct padata_priv, list);
       spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
       list_del_init(&padata->list);
       atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
       spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);

       pd->processed++;

       goto out;
}
out:
return padata;

I strongly suspect that the problem here is that two threads can race
on reorder list. Even though the deletion is locked, call to
list_entry is not locked, which means it's feasible that two threads
pick up the same padata object and subsequently call list_add_tail on
them at the same time. The fix is thus be hoist that lock outside of
that block.

Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 kernel/padata.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/padata.c b/kernel/padata.c
index ed6f4f93cc92..ecc7b3f452c7 100644
--- a/kernel/padata.c
+++ b/kernel/padata.c
@@ -189,19 +189,20 @@ static struct padata_priv *padata_get_next(struct parallel_data *pd)
 
 	reorder = &next_queue->reorder;
 
+	spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
 	if (!list_empty(&reorder->list)) {
 		padata = list_entry(reorder->list.next,
 				    struct padata_priv, list);
 
-		spin_lock(&reorder->lock);
 		list_del_init(&padata->list);
 		atomic_dec(&pd->reorder_objects);
-		spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
 
 		pd->processed++;
 
+		spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
 		goto out;
 	}
+	spin_unlock(&reorder->lock);
 
 	if (__this_cpu_read(pd->pqueue->cpu_index) == next_queue->cpu_index) {
 		padata = ERR_PTR(-ENODATA);
-- 
2.11.0