diff mbox

[v2] security: device_cgroup: fix RCU lockdep splat

Message ID 20150903001433.GB4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Paul E. McKenney Sept. 3, 2015, 12:14 a.m. UTC 
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> cc'ing Paul.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Felipe Balbi 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!
> ...
> > [   12.128326] [<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)
> 
> This shouldn't be happening because devcgroup_access_write() always
> grabs devcgroup_mutex.  Looking at the log, the culprit seems to be
> f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()").  It missed the bang for the second test while
> inverting it, so adding rcu_read_lock() isn't the right fix here.
> 
> Paul, can you please fix it?

Gah!  Please see below.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

security/device_cgroup: Fix RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() condition

f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
introduced a bug by incorrectly inverting the condition when moving from
rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  This commit therefore fixes
the inversion.

Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Serge E. Hallyn Sept. 3, 2015, 1:48 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:14:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > cc'ing Paul.
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Felipe Balbi 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!
> > ...
> > > [   12.128326] [<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)
> > 
> > This shouldn't be happening because devcgroup_access_write() always
> > grabs devcgroup_mutex.  Looking at the log, the culprit seems to be
> > f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()").  It missed the bang for the second test while
> > inverting it, so adding rcu_read_lock() isn't the right fix here.
> > 
> > Paul, can you please fix it?
> 
> Gah!  Please see below.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> security/device_cgroup: Fix RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() condition
> 
> f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
> introduced a bug by incorrectly inverting the condition when moving from
> rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  This commit therefore fixes
> the inversion.
> 
> Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>

Oh, makes sense :)  (didn't see the original patch when it came by, sorry)

Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>

> diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
> index 73455089feef..03c1652c9a1f 100644
> --- a/security/device_cgroup.c
> +++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static bool verify_new_ex(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
>  	bool match = false;
>  
>  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> -			 lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> +			 !lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
>  			 "device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization");
>  
>  	if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Josh Boyer Sept. 3, 2015, 1:56 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> cc'ing Paul.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Felipe Balbi 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!
>> ...
>> > [   12.128326] [<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)
>>
>> This shouldn't be happening because devcgroup_access_write() always
>> grabs devcgroup_mutex.  Looking at the log, the culprit seems to be
>> f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to
>> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()").  It missed the bang for the second test while
>> inverting it, so adding rcu_read_lock() isn't the right fix here.
>>
>> Paul, can you please fix it?
>
> Gah!  Please see below.
>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> security/device_cgroup: Fix RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() condition
>
> f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
> introduced a bug by incorrectly inverting the condition when moving from
> rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  This commit therefore fixes
> the inversion.
>
> Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>

Just tested this patch without Felipe's previous version on all my
machines.  The splat is indeed gone.

Tested-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>

josh

>
> diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
> index 73455089feef..03c1652c9a1f 100644
> --- a/security/device_cgroup.c
> +++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
> @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static bool verify_new_ex(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
>         bool match = false;
>
>         RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> -                        lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> +                        !lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
>                          "device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization");
>
>         if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Paul E. McKenney Sept. 4, 2015, 1:14 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:48:39AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:14:33PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > cc'ing Paul.
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Felipe Balbi 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!
> > > ...
> > > > [   12.128326] [<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)
> > > 
> > > This shouldn't be happening because devcgroup_access_write() always
> > > grabs devcgroup_mutex.  Looking at the log, the culprit seems to be
> > > f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()").  It missed the bang for the second test while
> > > inverting it, so adding rcu_read_lock() isn't the right fix here.
> > > 
> > > Paul, can you please fix it?
> > 
> > Gah!  Please see below.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > security/device_cgroup: Fix RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() condition
> > 
> > f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
> > introduced a bug by incorrectly inverting the condition when moving from
> > rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  This commit therefore fixes
> > the inversion.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> > Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> 
> Oh, makes sense :)  (didn't see the original patch when it came by, sorry)

I should have CCed you, apologies for failing to do so.

> Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>

Added, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> > diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
> > index 73455089feef..03c1652c9a1f 100644
> > --- a/security/device_cgroup.c
> > +++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
> > @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static bool verify_new_ex(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
> >  	bool match = false;
> >  
> >  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> > -			 lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> > +			 !lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> >  			 "device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization");
> >  
> >  	if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Paul E. McKenney Sept. 4, 2015, 1:15 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:56:05AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:24:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> cc'ing Paul.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 08:12:28AM -0500, Felipe Balbi 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!
> >> ...
> >> > [   12.128326] [<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)
> >>
> >> This shouldn't be happening because devcgroup_access_write() always
> >> grabs devcgroup_mutex.  Looking at the log, the culprit seems to be
> >> f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to
> >> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()").  It missed the bang for the second test while
> >> inverting it, so adding rcu_read_lock() isn't the right fix here.
> >>
> >> Paul, can you please fix it?
> >
> > Gah!  Please see below.
> >
> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > security/device_cgroup: Fix RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() condition
> >
> > f78f5b90c4ff ("rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()")
> > introduced a bug by incorrectly inverting the condition when moving from
> > rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN().  This commit therefore fixes
> > the inversion.
> >
> > Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> > Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>
> 
> Just tested this patch without Felipe's previous version on all my
> machines.  The splat is indeed gone.
> 
> Tested-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>

Thank you, added!

							Thanx, Paul

> josh
> 
> >
> > diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
> > index 73455089feef..03c1652c9a1f 100644
> > --- a/security/device_cgroup.c
> > +++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
> > @@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ static bool verify_new_ex(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
> >         bool match = false;
> >
> >         RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
> > -                        lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> > +                        !lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
> >                          "device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization");
> >
> >         if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
index 73455089feef..03c1652c9a1f 100644
--- a/security/device_cgroup.c
+++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
@@ -401,7 +401,7 @@  static bool verify_new_ex(struct dev_cgroup *dev_cgroup,
 	bool match = false;
 
 	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held() &&
-			 lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
+			 !lockdep_is_held(&devcgroup_mutex),
 			 "device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization");
 
 	if (dev_cgroup->behavior == DEVCG_DEFAULT_ALLOW) {