From: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ftrace: fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:47:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <A3E35DD7-5270-49FF-AAEB-C7504B5EF22E@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220927123500.76b07f73@gandalf.local.home>
Hi Steven,
> On Sep 27, 2022, at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>
> Minor nit, just change the subject to start with a capital letter.
>
> ftrace: Fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller
>
> Other than that, this looks good.
>
> Do you want to put this through your tree, or do you want me to take it?
>
> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Thanks for the review! Since this only touches ftrace code, please take
it through your tree.
Best,
Song
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:41:46 -0700
> Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> Naveen reported recursive locking of direct_mutex with sample
>> ftrace-direct-modify.ko:
>>
>> [ 74.762406] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
>> [ 74.762887] 6.0.0-rc6+ #33 Not tainted
>> [ 74.763216] --------------------------------------------
>> [ 74.763672] event-sample-fn/1084 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 74.764152] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>> register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.764922]
>> [ 74.764922] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 74.765421] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>> modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0
>> [ 74.766142]
>> [ 74.766142] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 74.766701] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 74.766701]
>> [ 74.767216] CPU0
>> [ 74.767437] ----
>> [ 74.767656] lock(direct_mutex);
>> [ 74.767952] lock(direct_mutex);
>> [ 74.768245]
>> [ 74.768245] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 74.768245]
>> [ 74.768750] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>> [ 74.768750]
>> [ 74.769332] 1 lock held by event-sample-fn/1084:
>> [ 74.769731] #0: ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \
>> modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0
>> [ 74.770496]
>> [ 74.770496] stack backtrace:
>> [ 74.770884] CPU: 4 PID: 1084 Comm: event-sample-fn Not tainted ...
>> [ 74.771498] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), ...
>> [ 74.772474] Call Trace:
>> [ 74.772696] <TASK>
>> [ 74.772896] dump_stack_lvl+0x44/0x5b
>> [ 74.773223] __lock_acquire.cold.74+0xac/0x2b7
>> [ 74.773616] lock_acquire+0xd2/0x310
>> [ 74.773936] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.774357] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd8/0x130
>> [ 74.774744] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.775213] __mutex_lock+0x99/0x1010
>> [ 74.775536] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.775954] ? slab_free_freelist_hook.isra.43+0x115/0x160
>> [ 74.776424] ? ftrace_set_hash+0x195/0x220
>> [ 74.776779] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.777194] ? kfree+0x3e1/0x440
>> [ 74.777482] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.777941] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [ 74.778258] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.778672] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.779128] register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180
>> [ 74.779527] ? ftrace_set_filter_ip+0x33/0x70
>> [ 74.779910] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [ 74.780231] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.780678] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.781147] ftrace_modify_direct_caller+0x5b/0x90
>> [ 74.781563] ? 0xffffffffa0201000
>> [ 74.781859] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.782309] modify_ftrace_direct+0x1b2/0x1f0
>> [ 74.782690] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [ 74.783014] ? simple_thread+0x2a/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.783508] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40
>> [ 74.783832] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.784294] simple_thread+0x76/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify]
>> [ 74.784766] kthread+0xf5/0x120
>> [ 74.785052] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>> [ 74.785464] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>> [ 74.785781] </TASK>
>>
>> Fix this by using register_ftrace_function_nolock in
>> ftrace_modify_direct_caller.
>>
>> Fixes: 53cd885bc5c3 ("ftrace: Allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops on the same function")
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-27 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-27 0:41 Song Liu
2022-09-27 16:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2022-09-27 17:47 ` Song Liu [this message]
2022-09-27 17:50 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=A3E35DD7-5270-49FF-AAEB-C7504B5EF22E@fb.com \
--to=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®