stable.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: g.nault@alphalink.fr, davem@davemloft.net,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sedat.dilek@gmail.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "ppp: fix lockdep splat in ppp_dev_uninit()" has been added to the 4.2-stable tree
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:32:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1443583934140182@kroah.com> (raw)


This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    ppp: fix lockdep splat in ppp_dev_uninit()

to the 4.2-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     ppp-fix-lockdep-splat-in-ppp_dev_uninit.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.2 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.


>From foo@baz Wed Sep 30 05:25:07 CEST 2015
From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:54:01 +0200
Subject: ppp: fix lockdep splat in ppp_dev_uninit()

From: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>

[ Upstream commit 58a89ecaca53736aa465170530acea4f8be34ab4 ]

ppp_dev_uninit() locks all_ppp_mutex while under rtnl mutex protection.
ppp_create_interface() must then lock these mutexes in that same order
to avoid possible deadlock.

[  120.880011] ======================================================
[  120.880011] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[  120.880011] 4.2.0 #1 Not tainted
[  120.880011] -------------------------------------------------------
[  120.880011] ppp-apitest/15827 is trying to acquire lock:
[  120.880011]  (&pn->all_ppp_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0145f56>] ppp_dev_uninit+0x64/0xb0 [ppp_generic]
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] but task is already holding lock:
[  120.880011]  (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812e4255>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] -> #1 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff81073a6f>] lock_acquire+0xcf/0x10e
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff813ab18a>] mutex_lock_nested+0x56/0x341
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff812e4255>] rtnl_lock+0x12/0x14
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff812d9d94>] register_netdev+0x11/0x27
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffffa0147b17>] ppp_ioctl+0x289/0xc98 [ppp_generic]
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8113b367>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x4ea/0x532
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8113b3fd>] SyS_ioctl+0x4e/0x7d
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff813ad7d7>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6f
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] -> #0 (&pn->all_ppp_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8107334e>] __lock_acquire+0xb07/0xe76
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff81073a6f>] lock_acquire+0xcf/0x10e
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff813ab18a>] mutex_lock_nested+0x56/0x341
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffffa0145f56>] ppp_dev_uninit+0x64/0xb0 [ppp_generic]
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff812d5263>] rollback_registered_many+0x19e/0x252
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff812d5381>] rollback_registered+0x29/0x38
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff812d53fa>] unregister_netdevice_queue+0x6a/0x77
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffffa0146a94>] ppp_release+0x42/0x79 [ppp_generic]
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8112d9f6>] __fput+0xec/0x192
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8112dacc>] ____fput+0x9/0xb
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff8105447a>] task_work_run+0x66/0x80
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff81001801>] prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x8c/0xa7
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff81001900>] syscall_return_slowpath+0xe4/0x104
[  120.880011]        [<ffffffff813ad931>] int_ret_from_sys_call+0x25/0x9f
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011] other info that might help us debug this:
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  120.880011]        ----                    ----
[  120.880011]   lock(rtnl_mutex);
[  120.880011]                                lock(&pn->all_ppp_mutex);
[  120.880011]                                lock(rtnl_mutex);
[  120.880011]   lock(&pn->all_ppp_mutex);
[  120.880011]
[  120.880011]  *** DEADLOCK ***

Fixes: 8cb775bc0a34 ("ppp: fix device unregistration upon netns deletion")
Reported-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_generic.c
@@ -2742,6 +2742,7 @@ static struct ppp *ppp_create_interface(
 	 */
 	dev_net_set(dev, net);
 
+	rtnl_lock();
 	mutex_lock(&pn->all_ppp_mutex);
 
 	if (unit < 0) {
@@ -2772,7 +2773,7 @@ static struct ppp *ppp_create_interface(
 	ppp->file.index = unit;
 	sprintf(dev->name, "ppp%d", unit);
 
-	ret = register_netdev(dev);
+	ret = register_netdevice(dev);
 	if (ret != 0) {
 		unit_put(&pn->units_idr, unit);
 		netdev_err(ppp->dev, "PPP: couldn't register device %s (%d)\n",
@@ -2784,6 +2785,7 @@ static struct ppp *ppp_create_interface(
 
 	atomic_inc(&ppp_unit_count);
 	mutex_unlock(&pn->all_ppp_mutex);
+	rtnl_unlock();
 
 	*retp = 0;
 	return ppp;


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from g.nault@alphalink.fr are

queue-4.2/ppp-fix-lockdep-splat-in-ppp_dev_uninit.patch

                 reply	other threads:[~2015-09-30  3:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=1443583934140182@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=g.nault@alphalink.fr \
    --cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).