From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
To: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>,
"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:47:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d9b1f605-9d4a-456c-9f4b-43681f9c1773@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241002125611.361001-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Hey,
I'm pretty sure I've seen this use-after-free in the wild, just never found the root cause since it's so unlikely to trigger on demand.
Acked-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Den 2024-10-02 kl. 14:56, skrev Thomas Hellström:
> When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
> number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
> keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
> is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
> but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
> memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
> there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
> itself has been released.
>
> In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
> and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
> mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
>
> Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
> dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
>
> Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
> make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.
>
> This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
> a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
> modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
> is not going to be used.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/ww_mutex.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> + /**
> + * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked ww_mutex.
> + *
> + * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked ww_mutex
> + * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all ww_mutexes of
> + * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by keeping a
> + * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between ww_acquire_init() and
> + * ww_acquire_fini().
> + */
> + struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> + lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
> + &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> + mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> + mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> #endif
> #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> index 10a5736a21c2..4c2b8b567de5 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> int ret;
>
> ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> - ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> + if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> + ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
>
> INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
> init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done, TIMEOUT);
> }
> ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> - ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> + if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> + ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
>
> if (ret) {
> pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-09 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-02 12:56 Thomas Hellström
2024-10-04 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-10-04 10:50 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-10-08 7:55 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Thomas Hellström
2024-10-09 7:42 ` [PATCH RESEND] " kernel test robot
2024-10-09 9:13 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-10-09 10:47 ` Maarten Lankhorst [this message]
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=d9b1f605-9d4a-456c-9f4b-43681f9c1773@linux.intel.com \
--to=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=will@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®