Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932511AbbKXWlw (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:41:52 -0500 Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:40365 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755470AbbKXWfm (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:35:42 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ben Hutchings To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Felipe Balbi" , "Brian Norris" Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:33:59 +0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: LinuxStableQueue (scripts by bwh) Subject: [PATCH 3.2 25/52] mtd: blkdevs: fix potential deadlock + lockdep warnings In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.4.247 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@decadent.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shadbolt.decadent.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6737 Lines: 173 3.2.74-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Brian Norris commit f3c63795e90f0c6238306883b6c72f14d5355721 upstream. Commit 073db4a51ee4 ("mtd: fix: avoid race condition when accessing mtd->usecount") fixed a race condition but due to poor ordering of the mutex acquisition, introduced a potential deadlock. The deadlock can occur, for example, when rmmod'ing the m25p80 module, which will delete one or more MTDs, along with any corresponding mtdblock devices. This could potentially race with an acquisition of the block device as follows. -> blktrans_open() -> mutex_lock(&dev->lock); -> mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex); -> del_mtd_device() -> mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex); -> blktrans_notify_remove() -> del_mtd_blktrans_dev() -> mutex_lock(&dev->lock); This is a classic (potential) ABBA deadlock, which can be fixed by making the A->B ordering consistent everywhere. There was no real purpose to the ordering in the original patch, AFAIR, so this shouldn't be a problem. This ordering was actually already present in del_mtd_blktrans_dev(), for one, where the function tried to ensure that its caller already held mtd_table_mutex before it acquired &dev->lock: if (mutex_trylock(&mtd_table_mutex)) { mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); BUG(); } So, reverse the ordering of acquisition of &dev->lock and &mtd_table_mutex so we always acquire mtd_table_mutex first. Snippets of the lockdep output follow: # modprobe -r m25p80 [ 53.419251] [ 53.420838] ====================================================== [ 53.427300] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 53.433865] 4.3.0-rc6 #96 Not tainted [ 53.437686] ------------------------------------------------------- [ 53.444220] modprobe/372 is trying to acquire lock: [ 53.449320] (&new->lock){+.+...}, at: [] del_mtd_blktrans_dev+0x80/0xdc [ 53.457271] [ 53.457271] but task is already holding lock: [ 53.463372] (mtd_table_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [] del_mtd_device+0x18/0x100 [ 53.471321] [ 53.471321] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 53.471321] [ 53.479856] [ 53.479856] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 53.487660] -> #1 (mtd_table_mutex){+.+.+.}: [ 53.492331] [] blktrans_open+0x34/0x1a4 [ 53.497879] [] __blkdev_get+0xc4/0x3b0 [ 53.503364] [] blkdev_get+0x108/0x320 [ 53.508743] [] do_dentry_open+0x218/0x314 [ 53.514496] [] path_openat+0x4c0/0xf9c [ 53.519959] [] do_filp_open+0x5c/0xc0 [ 53.525336] [] do_sys_open+0xfc/0x1cc [ 53.530716] [] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c [ 53.536375] -> #0 (&new->lock){+.+...}: [ 53.540587] [] mutex_lock_nested+0x38/0x3cc [ 53.546504] [] del_mtd_blktrans_dev+0x80/0xdc [ 53.552606] [] blktrans_notify_remove+0x7c/0x84 [ 53.558891] [] del_mtd_device+0x74/0x100 [ 53.564544] [] del_mtd_partitions+0x80/0xc8 [ 53.570451] [] mtd_device_unregister+0x24/0x48 [ 53.576637] [] spi_drv_remove+0x1c/0x34 [ 53.582207] [] __device_release_driver+0x88/0x114 [ 53.588663] [] device_release_driver+0x20/0x2c [ 53.594843] [] bus_remove_device+0xd8/0x108 [ 53.600748] [] device_del+0x10c/0x210 [ 53.606127] [] device_unregister+0xc/0x20 [ 53.611849] [] __unregister+0x10/0x20 [ 53.617211] [] device_for_each_child+0x50/0x7c [ 53.623387] [] spi_unregister_master+0x58/0x8c [ 53.629578] [] release_nodes+0x15c/0x1c8 [ 53.635223] [] __device_release_driver+0x90/0x114 [ 53.641689] [] driver_detach+0xb4/0xb8 [ 53.647147] [] bus_remove_driver+0x4c/0xa0 [ 53.652970] [] SyS_delete_module+0x11c/0x1e4 [ 53.658976] [] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c [ 53.664621] [ 53.664621] other info that might help us debug this: [ 53.664621] [ 53.672979] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 53.672979] [ 53.679169] CPU0 CPU1 [ 53.683900] ---- ---- [ 53.688633] lock(mtd_table_mutex); [ 53.692383] lock(&new->lock); [ 53.698306] lock(mtd_table_mutex); [ 53.704658] lock(&new->lock); [ 53.707946] [ 53.707946] *** DEADLOCK *** Fixes: 073db4a51ee4 ("mtd: fix: avoid race condition when accessing mtd->usecount") Reported-by: Felipe Balbi Tested-by: Felipe Balbi Signed-off-by: Brian Norris Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings --- drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c @@ -213,8 +213,8 @@ static int blktrans_open(struct block_de if (!dev) return -ERESTARTSYS; /* FIXME: busy loop! -arnd*/ - mutex_lock(&dev->lock); mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex); + mutex_lock(&dev->lock); if (dev->open) goto unlock; @@ -237,8 +237,8 @@ static int blktrans_open(struct block_de unlock: dev->open++; - mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); mutex_unlock(&dev->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); blktrans_dev_put(dev); return ret; @@ -248,8 +248,8 @@ error_release: error_put: module_put(dev->tr->owner); kref_put(&dev->ref, blktrans_dev_release); - mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); mutex_unlock(&dev->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); blktrans_dev_put(dev); return ret; } @@ -262,8 +262,8 @@ static int blktrans_release(struct gendi if (!dev) return ret; - mutex_lock(&dev->lock); mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex); + mutex_lock(&dev->lock); if (--dev->open) goto unlock; @@ -276,8 +276,8 @@ static int blktrans_release(struct gendi __put_mtd_device(dev->mtd); } unlock: - mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); mutex_unlock(&dev->lock); + mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex); blktrans_dev_put(dev); return ret; } -- 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/