From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Don't write out to userspace while holding key semaphore
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2020 18:40:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200306184013.GC7472@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200305210640.15315-1-longman@redhat.com>
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 04:06:40PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> A lockdep circular locking dependency report was seen when running a
> keyutils test:
>
> [12537.027242] ===========================
> [12537.059309] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [12537.088148] 4.18.0-147.7.1.el8_1.x86_64+debug #1 Tainted: G OE --------- - -
> [12537.125253] ------------------------------------------------------
> [12537.153189] keyctl/25598 is trying to acquire lock:
> [12537.175087] 000000007c39f96c (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12537.208365]
> [12537.208365] but task is already holding lock:
> [12537.234507] 000000003de5b58d (&type->lock_class){++++}, at: keyctl_read_key+0x15a/0x220
> [12537.270476]
> [12537.270476] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [12537.270476]
> [12537.307209]
> [12537.307209] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [12537.340754]
> [12537.340754] -> #3 (&type->lock_class){++++}:
> [12537.367434] down_write+0x4d/0x110
> [12537.385202] __key_link_begin+0x87/0x280
> [12537.405232] request_key_and_link+0x483/0xf70
> [12537.427221] request_key+0x3c/0x80
> [12537.444839] dns_query+0x1db/0x5a5 [dns_resolver]
> [12537.468445] dns_resolve_server_name_to_ip+0x1e1/0x4d0 [cifs]
> [12537.496731] cifs_reconnect+0xe04/0x2500 [cifs]
> [12537.519418] cifs_readv_from_socket+0x461/0x690 [cifs]
> [12537.546263] cifs_read_from_socket+0xa0/0xe0 [cifs]
> [12537.573551] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x311/0x2db0 [cifs]
> [12537.601045] kthread+0x30c/0x3d0
> [12537.617906] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> [12537.636225]
> [12537.636225] -> #2 (root_key_user.cons_lock){+.+.}:
> [12537.664525] __mutex_lock+0x105/0x11f0
> [12537.683734] request_key_and_link+0x35a/0xf70
> [12537.705640] request_key+0x3c/0x80
> [12537.723304] dns_query+0x1db/0x5a5 [dns_resolver]
> [12537.746773] dns_resolve_server_name_to_ip+0x1e1/0x4d0 [cifs]
> [12537.775607] cifs_reconnect+0xe04/0x2500 [cifs]
> [12537.798322] cifs_readv_from_socket+0x461/0x690 [cifs]
> [12537.823369] cifs_read_from_socket+0xa0/0xe0 [cifs]
> [12537.847262] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x311/0x2db0 [cifs]
> [12537.873477] kthread+0x30c/0x3d0
> [12537.890281] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> [12537.908649]
> [12537.908649] -> #1 (&tcp_ses->srv_mutex){+.+.}:
> [12537.935225] __mutex_lock+0x105/0x11f0
> [12537.954450] cifs_call_async+0x102/0x7f0 [cifs]
> [12537.977250] smb2_async_readv+0x6c3/0xc90 [cifs]
> [12538.000659] cifs_readpages+0x120a/0x1e50 [cifs]
> [12538.023920] read_pages+0xf5/0x560
> [12538.041583] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x41d/0x4b0
> [12538.067047] ondemand_readahead+0x44c/0xc10
> [12538.092069] filemap_fault+0xec1/0x1830
> [12538.111637] __do_fault+0x82/0x260
> [12538.129216] do_fault+0x419/0xfb0
> [12538.146390] __handle_mm_fault+0x862/0xdf0
> [12538.167408] handle_mm_fault+0x154/0x550
> [12538.187401] __do_page_fault+0x42f/0xa60
> [12538.207395] do_page_fault+0x38/0x5e0
> [12538.225777] page_fault+0x1e/0x30
> [12538.243010]
> [12538.243010] -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
> [12538.267875] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x420
> [12538.286848] __might_fault+0x119/0x1b0
> [12538.306006] keyring_read_iterator+0x7e/0x170
> [12538.327936] assoc_array_subtree_iterate+0x97/0x280
> [12538.352154] keyring_read+0xe9/0x110
> [12538.370558] keyctl_read_key+0x1b9/0x220
> [12538.391470] do_syscall_64+0xa5/0x4b0
> [12538.410511] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6a/0xdf
> [12538.435535]
> [12538.435535] other info that might help us debug this:
> [12538.435535]
> [12538.472829] Chain exists of:
> [12538.472829] &mm->mmap_sem --> root_key_user.cons_lock --> &type->lock_class
> [12538.472829]
> [12538.524820] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [12538.524820]
> [12538.551431] CPU0 CPU1
> [12538.572654] ---- ----
> [12538.595865] lock(&type->lock_class);
> [12538.613737] lock(root_key_user.cons_lock);
> [12538.644234] lock(&type->lock_class);
> [12538.672410] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> [12538.687758]
> [12538.687758] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [12538.687758]
> [12538.714455] 1 lock held by keyctl/25598:
> [12538.732097] #0: 000000003de5b58d (&type->lock_class){++++}, at: keyctl_read_key+0x15a/0x220
> [12538.770573]
> [12538.770573] stack backtrace:
> [12538.790136] CPU: 2 PID: 25598 Comm: keyctl Kdump: loaded Tainted: G
> [12538.844855] Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL360 Gen9/ProLiant DL360 Gen9, BIOS P89 12/27/2015
> [12538.881963] Call Trace:
> [12538.892897] dump_stack+0x9a/0xf0
> [12538.907908] print_circular_bug.isra.25.cold.50+0x1bc/0x279
> [12538.932891] ? save_trace+0xd6/0x250
> [12538.948979] check_prev_add.constprop.32+0xc36/0x14f0
> [12538.971643] ? keyring_compare_object+0x104/0x190
> [12538.992738] ? check_usage+0x550/0x550
> [12539.009845] ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
> [12539.025484] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x18/0x1e0
> [12539.043555] __lock_acquire+0x1f12/0x38d0
> [12539.061551] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x10/0x10
> [12539.080554] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x420
> [12539.100330] ? __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12539.119079] __might_fault+0x119/0x1b0
> [12539.135869] ? __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12539.153234] keyring_read_iterator+0x7e/0x170
> [12539.172787] ? keyring_read+0x110/0x110
> [12539.190059] assoc_array_subtree_iterate+0x97/0x280
> [12539.211526] keyring_read+0xe9/0x110
> [12539.227561] ? keyring_gc_check_iterator+0xc0/0xc0
> [12539.249076] keyctl_read_key+0x1b9/0x220
> [12539.266660] do_syscall_64+0xa5/0x4b0
> [12539.283091] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6a/0xdf
>
> One way to prevent this deadlock scenario from happening is to not
> allow writing to userspace while holding the key semaphore. Instead,
> an internal buffer is allocated for getting the keys out from the
> read method first before copying them out to userspace without holding
> the lock.
>
> That requires taking out the __user modifier from the read methods as
> well as additional changes to not use any userspace write helpers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Hi, quickly checked this (it is Friday night in Finland) and did not
see anything obvious that'd be wrong. I'll give a more detailed look
next week.
Thank you.
/Jarkko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Don't write out to userspace while holding key semaphore
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 20:40:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200306184013.GC7472@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200305210640.15315-1-longman@redhat.com>
On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 04:06:40PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> A lockdep circular locking dependency report was seen when running a
> keyutils test:
>
> [12537.027242] ======================================================
> [12537.059309] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [12537.088148] 4.18.0-147.7.1.el8_1.x86_64+debug #1 Tainted: G OE --------- - -
> [12537.125253] ------------------------------------------------------
> [12537.153189] keyctl/25598 is trying to acquire lock:
> [12537.175087] 000000007c39f96c (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12537.208365]
> [12537.208365] but task is already holding lock:
> [12537.234507] 000000003de5b58d (&type->lock_class){++++}, at: keyctl_read_key+0x15a/0x220
> [12537.270476]
> [12537.270476] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [12537.270476]
> [12537.307209]
> [12537.307209] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [12537.340754]
> [12537.340754] -> #3 (&type->lock_class){++++}:
> [12537.367434] down_write+0x4d/0x110
> [12537.385202] __key_link_begin+0x87/0x280
> [12537.405232] request_key_and_link+0x483/0xf70
> [12537.427221] request_key+0x3c/0x80
> [12537.444839] dns_query+0x1db/0x5a5 [dns_resolver]
> [12537.468445] dns_resolve_server_name_to_ip+0x1e1/0x4d0 [cifs]
> [12537.496731] cifs_reconnect+0xe04/0x2500 [cifs]
> [12537.519418] cifs_readv_from_socket+0x461/0x690 [cifs]
> [12537.546263] cifs_read_from_socket+0xa0/0xe0 [cifs]
> [12537.573551] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x311/0x2db0 [cifs]
> [12537.601045] kthread+0x30c/0x3d0
> [12537.617906] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> [12537.636225]
> [12537.636225] -> #2 (root_key_user.cons_lock){+.+.}:
> [12537.664525] __mutex_lock+0x105/0x11f0
> [12537.683734] request_key_and_link+0x35a/0xf70
> [12537.705640] request_key+0x3c/0x80
> [12537.723304] dns_query+0x1db/0x5a5 [dns_resolver]
> [12537.746773] dns_resolve_server_name_to_ip+0x1e1/0x4d0 [cifs]
> [12537.775607] cifs_reconnect+0xe04/0x2500 [cifs]
> [12537.798322] cifs_readv_from_socket+0x461/0x690 [cifs]
> [12537.823369] cifs_read_from_socket+0xa0/0xe0 [cifs]
> [12537.847262] cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x311/0x2db0 [cifs]
> [12537.873477] kthread+0x30c/0x3d0
> [12537.890281] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> [12537.908649]
> [12537.908649] -> #1 (&tcp_ses->srv_mutex){+.+.}:
> [12537.935225] __mutex_lock+0x105/0x11f0
> [12537.954450] cifs_call_async+0x102/0x7f0 [cifs]
> [12537.977250] smb2_async_readv+0x6c3/0xc90 [cifs]
> [12538.000659] cifs_readpages+0x120a/0x1e50 [cifs]
> [12538.023920] read_pages+0xf5/0x560
> [12538.041583] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x41d/0x4b0
> [12538.067047] ondemand_readahead+0x44c/0xc10
> [12538.092069] filemap_fault+0xec1/0x1830
> [12538.111637] __do_fault+0x82/0x260
> [12538.129216] do_fault+0x419/0xfb0
> [12538.146390] __handle_mm_fault+0x862/0xdf0
> [12538.167408] handle_mm_fault+0x154/0x550
> [12538.187401] __do_page_fault+0x42f/0xa60
> [12538.207395] do_page_fault+0x38/0x5e0
> [12538.225777] page_fault+0x1e/0x30
> [12538.243010]
> [12538.243010] -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
> [12538.267875] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x420
> [12538.286848] __might_fault+0x119/0x1b0
> [12538.306006] keyring_read_iterator+0x7e/0x170
> [12538.327936] assoc_array_subtree_iterate+0x97/0x280
> [12538.352154] keyring_read+0xe9/0x110
> [12538.370558] keyctl_read_key+0x1b9/0x220
> [12538.391470] do_syscall_64+0xa5/0x4b0
> [12538.410511] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6a/0xdf
> [12538.435535]
> [12538.435535] other info that might help us debug this:
> [12538.435535]
> [12538.472829] Chain exists of:
> [12538.472829] &mm->mmap_sem --> root_key_user.cons_lock --> &type->lock_class
> [12538.472829]
> [12538.524820] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [12538.524820]
> [12538.551431] CPU0 CPU1
> [12538.572654] ---- ----
> [12538.595865] lock(&type->lock_class);
> [12538.613737] lock(root_key_user.cons_lock);
> [12538.644234] lock(&type->lock_class);
> [12538.672410] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> [12538.687758]
> [12538.687758] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [12538.687758]
> [12538.714455] 1 lock held by keyctl/25598:
> [12538.732097] #0: 000000003de5b58d (&type->lock_class){++++}, at: keyctl_read_key+0x15a/0x220
> [12538.770573]
> [12538.770573] stack backtrace:
> [12538.790136] CPU: 2 PID: 25598 Comm: keyctl Kdump: loaded Tainted: G
> [12538.844855] Hardware name: HP ProLiant DL360 Gen9/ProLiant DL360 Gen9, BIOS P89 12/27/2015
> [12538.881963] Call Trace:
> [12538.892897] dump_stack+0x9a/0xf0
> [12538.907908] print_circular_bug.isra.25.cold.50+0x1bc/0x279
> [12538.932891] ? save_trace+0xd6/0x250
> [12538.948979] check_prev_add.constprop.32+0xc36/0x14f0
> [12538.971643] ? keyring_compare_object+0x104/0x190
> [12538.992738] ? check_usage+0x550/0x550
> [12539.009845] ? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
> [12539.025484] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x18/0x1e0
> [12539.043555] __lock_acquire+0x1f12/0x38d0
> [12539.061551] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x10/0x10
> [12539.080554] lock_acquire+0x14c/0x420
> [12539.100330] ? __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12539.119079] __might_fault+0x119/0x1b0
> [12539.135869] ? __might_fault+0xc4/0x1b0
> [12539.153234] keyring_read_iterator+0x7e/0x170
> [12539.172787] ? keyring_read+0x110/0x110
> [12539.190059] assoc_array_subtree_iterate+0x97/0x280
> [12539.211526] keyring_read+0xe9/0x110
> [12539.227561] ? keyring_gc_check_iterator+0xc0/0xc0
> [12539.249076] keyctl_read_key+0x1b9/0x220
> [12539.266660] do_syscall_64+0xa5/0x4b0
> [12539.283091] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6a/0xdf
>
> One way to prevent this deadlock scenario from happening is to not
> allow writing to userspace while holding the key semaphore. Instead,
> an internal buffer is allocated for getting the keys out from the
> read method first before copying them out to userspace without holding
> the lock.
>
> That requires taking out the __user modifier from the read methods as
> well as additional changes to not use any userspace write helpers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Hi, quickly checked this (it is Friday night in Finland) and did not
see anything obvious that'd be wrong. I'll give a more detailed look
next week.
Thank you.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-06 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-05 21:06 [PATCH] KEYS: Don't write out to userspace while holding key semaphore Waiman Long
2020-03-05 21:06 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-05 21:16 ` Eric Biggers
2020-03-05 21:16 ` Eric Biggers
2020-03-05 21:30 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-05 21:30 ` Waiman Long
2020-03-06 18:40 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2020-03-06 18:40 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
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=20200306184013.GC7472@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=crecklin@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=roberto.sassu@huawei.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.