Re: yama_ptrace_access_check(): possible recursive locking detected

Kees Cook
2012-08-10T01:39:37Z

Hi,

So, after taking a closer look at this, I cannot understand how it's
possible. Yama's task_lock call is against "current", not "child",
which is what ptrace_may_access() is locking. And the same code makes
sure that current != child. Yama would never get called if current ==
child.

How did you reproduce this situation?

Thanks,

-Kees

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> Here is a recursive lock possibility:
>
> ptrace_may_access()
> => task_lock(task);
> yama_ptrace_access_check()
> get_task_comm()
> => task_lock(task);
>
> [ 60.230444] =============================================
> [ 60.232078] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 60.232078] 3.5.0+ #281 Not tainted
> [ 60.232078] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 60.232078] trinity-child0/17019 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 60.232078] (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<c1176ffa>] get_task_comm+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 60.232078] (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<c10653fa>] ptrace_may_access+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 60.232078] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] CPU0
> [ 60.232078] ----
> [ 60.232078] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> [ 60.232078] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] 3 locks held by trinity-child0/17019:
> [ 60.232078] #0: (&p->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11a9683>] seq_read+0x33/0x6b0
> [ 60.232078] #1: (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11ff8ae>] lock_trace+0x2e/0xb0
> [ 60.232078] #2: (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<c10653fa>] ptrace_may_access+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078]
> [ 60.232078] stack backtrace:
> [ 60.232078] Pid: 17019, comm: trinity-child0 Not tainted 3.5.0+ #281
> [ 60.232078] Call Trace:
> [ 60.232078] [<c10c6238>] __lock_acquire+0x1498/0x14f0
> [ 60.232078] [<c10be7e7>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0x27/0x40
> [ 60.232078] [<c10c6360>] lock_acquire+0xd0/0x110
> [ 60.232078] [<c1176ffa>] ? get_task_comm+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078] [<c1422290>] _raw_spin_lock+0x60/0x110
> [ 60.232078] [<c1176ffa>] ? get_task_comm+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078] [<c1176ffa>] get_task_comm+0x4a/0xf0
> [ 60.232078] [<c1246798>] yama_ptrace_access_check+0x468/0x4a0
> [ 60.232078] [<c124648f>] ? yama_ptrace_access_check+0x15f/0x4a0
> [ 60.232078] [<c124209a>] security_ptrace_access_check+0x1a/0x30
> [ 60.232078] [<c1065229>] __ptrace_may_access+0x189/0x310
> [ 60.232078] [<c10650cc>] ? __ptrace_may_access+0x2c/0x310
> [ 60.232078] [<c106542d>] ptrace_may_access+0x7d/0xf0
> [ 60.232078] [<c11ff8ea>] lock_trace+0x6a/0xb0
> [ 60.232078] [<c11ffa46>] proc_pid_stack+0x76/0x170
> [ 60.232078] [<c1201064>] proc_single_show+0x74/0x100
> [ 60.232078] [<c11a97b3>] seq_read+0x163/0x6b0
> [ 60.232078] [<c105bf70>] ? do_setitimer+0x220/0x330
> [ 60.232078] [<c11a9650>] ? seq_lseek+0x1f0/0x1f0
> [ 60.232078] [<c116b55a>] vfs_read+0xca/0x280
> [ 60.232078] [<c11a9650>] ? seq_lseek+0x1f0/0x1f0
> [ 60.232078] [<c116b776>] sys_read+0x66/0xe0
> [ 60.232078] [<c1423d9d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> [ 60.232078] [<c1420000>] ? __schedule+0x2a0/0xc80
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security