Re: kvm: deadlock in kvm_vgic_map_resources

[Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:55:21AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/01/17 09:32, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> > 
> > On 11/01/17 19:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following deadlock.
> >> On commit 9c763584b7c8911106bb77af7e648bef09af9d80.
> >>
> >>
> >> =============================================
> >> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> >> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50 Not tainted
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> syz-executor/20805 is trying to acquire lock:
> >> (
> >> &kvm->lock
> >> ){+.+.+.}
> >> , at:
> >> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
> >> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
> >> but task is already holding lock:
> >> (&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
> >> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >> CPU0
> >> ----
> >> lock(&kvm->lock);
> >> lock(&kvm->lock);
> >> *** DEADLOCK ***
> >> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> >> 2 locks held by syz-executor/20805:
> >> #0:(&vcpu->mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
> >> [<ffff2000080bcc30>] vcpu_load+0x28/0x1d0
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:143
> >> #1:(&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
> >> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
> >> stack backtrace:
> >> CPU: 2 PID: 20805 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted
> >> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50
> >> Hardware name: Hardkernel ODROID-C2 (DT)
> >> Call trace:
> >> [<ffff200008090560>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3c8 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:69
> >> [<ffff200008090948>] show_stack+0x20/0x30 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:219
> >> [< inline >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15
> >> [<ffff200008895840>] dump_stack+0x100/0x150 lib/dump_stack.c:51
> >> [< inline >] print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1728
> >> [< inline >] check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1772
> >> [< inline >] validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2250
> >> [<ffff2000081c8718>] __lock_acquire+0x1938/0x3440 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3335
> >> [<ffff2000081caa84>] lock_acquire+0xdc/0x1d8 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3746
> >> [< inline >] __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:521
> >> [<ffff200009700004>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x7b8 kernel/locking/mutex.c:621
> >> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
> >> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
> >> [<ffff2000080ec290>] vgic_v2_map_resources+0x218/0x430
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c:295
> >> [<ffff2000080ea884>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0xcc/0x108
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:348
> >> [< inline >] kvm_vcpu_first_run_init
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:505
> >> [<ffff2000080d2768>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0xab8/0xce0
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:591
> >> [<ffff2000080c1fec>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x434/0xc08
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:2557
> >> [< inline >] vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:43
> >> [<ffff200008450c38>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x128/0xfc0 fs/ioctl.c:679
> >> [< inline >] SYSC_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:694
> >> [<ffff200008451b78>] SyS_ioctl+0xa8/0xb8 fs/ioctl.c:685
> >> [<ffff200008083ef0>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:755
> > 
> > Nice catch, and many thanks for reporting this.
> > 
> > The bug is fairly obvious. Christoffer, what do you think? I don't think
> > we need to hold the kvm->lock all the way, but I'd like another pair of
> > eyes (the coffee machine is out of order again, and tea doesn't cut it).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	M.
> > 
> > From 93f80b20fb9351a49ee8b74eed3fc59c84651371 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:56 +0000
> > Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Fix deadlock on error handling
> > 
> > Dmitry Vyukov reported that the syzkaller fuzzer triggered a
> > deadlock in the vgic setup code when an error was detected, as
> > the cleanup code tries to take a lock that is already held by
> > the setup code.
> > 
> > The fix is pretty obvious: move the cleaup call after having
> > dropped the lock, since not much can happen at that point.
>                           ^^^^^^^^
> Is that really true? If for instance the calls to
> vgic_register_dist_iodev() or kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() in
> vgic_v2_map_resources() fail, we leave the function with a half
> initialized VGIC (because vgic_init() succeeded). Dropping the lock at
> this point without having the GIC cleaned up before sounds a bit
> suspicious (I may be wrong on this, though).
> 
> Can't we just document that kvm_vgic_destroy() needs to be called with
> the kvm->lock held and take the lock around the only other caller
> (kvm_arch_destroy_vm() in arch/arm/kvm/arm.c)?
> We can then keep holding the lock in the map_resources calls.
> Though we might still move the calls to kvm_vgic_destroy() into the
> wrapper function as a cleanup (as shown below), just before dropping the
> lock.
> 

I was going to suggest the same.  I cannot really see through all the
possible interactions, but I feel safer doing that.

Thanks,
-Christoffer