[PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 070/164] mtd: blkdevs: fix potential deadlock + lockdep warnings
From: Kamal Mostafa
Date: Wed Dec 02 2015 - 12:45:44 EST
3.19.8-ckt11 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
commit f3c63795e90f0c6238306883b6c72f14d5355721 upstream.
Commit 073db4a51ee4 ("mtd: fix: avoid race condition when accessing
mtd->usecount") fixed a race condition but due to poor ordering of the
mutex acquisition, introduced a potential deadlock.
The deadlock can occur, for example, when rmmod'ing the m25p80 module, which
will delete one or more MTDs, along with any corresponding mtdblock
devices. This could potentially race with an acquisition of the block
device as follows.
-> blktrans_open()
-> mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
-> mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex);
-> del_mtd_device()
-> mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex);
-> blktrans_notify_remove() -> del_mtd_blktrans_dev()
-> mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
This is a classic (potential) ABBA deadlock, which can be fixed by
making the A->B ordering consistent everywhere. There was no real
purpose to the ordering in the original patch, AFAIR, so this shouldn't
be a problem. This ordering was actually already present in
del_mtd_blktrans_dev(), for one, where the function tried to ensure that
its caller already held mtd_table_mutex before it acquired &dev->lock:
if (mutex_trylock(&mtd_table_mutex)) {
mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
BUG();
}
So, reverse the ordering of acquisition of &dev->lock and &mtd_table_mutex so
we always acquire mtd_table_mutex first.
Snippets of the lockdep output follow:
# modprobe -r m25p80
[ 53.419251]
[ 53.420838] ======================================================
[ 53.427300] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 53.433865] 4.3.0-rc6 #96 Not tainted
[ 53.437686] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 53.444220] modprobe/372 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 53.449320] (&new->lock){+.+...}, at: [<c043fe4c>] del_mtd_blktrans_dev+0x80/0xdc
[ 53.457271]
[ 53.457271] but task is already holding lock:
[ 53.463372] (mtd_table_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c0439994>] del_mtd_device+0x18/0x100
[ 53.471321]
[ 53.471321] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 53.471321]
[ 53.479856]
[ 53.479856] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 53.487660]
-> #1 (mtd_table_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[ 53.492331] [<c043fc5c>] blktrans_open+0x34/0x1a4
[ 53.497879] [<c01afce0>] __blkdev_get+0xc4/0x3b0
[ 53.503364] [<c01b0bb8>] blkdev_get+0x108/0x320
[ 53.508743] [<c01713c0>] do_dentry_open+0x218/0x314
[ 53.514496] [<c0180454>] path_openat+0x4c0/0xf9c
[ 53.519959] [<c0182044>] do_filp_open+0x5c/0xc0
[ 53.525336] [<c0172758>] do_sys_open+0xfc/0x1cc
[ 53.530716] [<c000f740>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
[ 53.536375]
-> #0 (&new->lock){+.+...}:
[ 53.540587] [<c063f124>] mutex_lock_nested+0x38/0x3cc
[ 53.546504] [<c043fe4c>] del_mtd_blktrans_dev+0x80/0xdc
[ 53.552606] [<c043f164>] blktrans_notify_remove+0x7c/0x84
[ 53.558891] [<c04399f0>] del_mtd_device+0x74/0x100
[ 53.564544] [<c043c670>] del_mtd_partitions+0x80/0xc8
[ 53.570451] [<c0439aa0>] mtd_device_unregister+0x24/0x48
[ 53.576637] [<c046ce6c>] spi_drv_remove+0x1c/0x34
[ 53.582207] [<c03de0f0>] __device_release_driver+0x88/0x114
[ 53.588663] [<c03de19c>] device_release_driver+0x20/0x2c
[ 53.594843] [<c03dd9e8>] bus_remove_device+0xd8/0x108
[ 53.600748] [<c03dacc0>] device_del+0x10c/0x210
[ 53.606127] [<c03dadd0>] device_unregister+0xc/0x20
[ 53.611849] [<c046d878>] __unregister+0x10/0x20
[ 53.617211] [<c03da868>] device_for_each_child+0x50/0x7c
[ 53.623387] [<c046eae8>] spi_unregister_master+0x58/0x8c
[ 53.629578] [<c03e12f0>] release_nodes+0x15c/0x1c8
[ 53.635223] [<c03de0f8>] __device_release_driver+0x90/0x114
[ 53.641689] [<c03de900>] driver_detach+0xb4/0xb8
[ 53.647147] [<c03ddc78>] bus_remove_driver+0x4c/0xa0
[ 53.652970] [<c00cab50>] SyS_delete_module+0x11c/0x1e4
[ 53.658976] [<c000f740>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
[ 53.664621]
[ 53.664621] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 53.664621]
[ 53.672979] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 53.672979]
[ 53.679169] CPU0 CPU1
[ 53.683900] ---- ----
[ 53.688633] lock(mtd_table_mutex);
[ 53.692383] lock(&new->lock);
[ 53.698306] lock(mtd_table_mutex);
[ 53.704658] lock(&new->lock);
[ 53.707946]
[ 53.707946] *** DEADLOCK ***
Fixes: 073db4a51ee4 ("mtd: fix: avoid race condition when accessing mtd->usecount")
Reported-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
Tested-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
index 3a69b1e..861d757 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
@@ -199,8 +199,8 @@ static int blktrans_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
if (!dev)
return -ERESTARTSYS; /* FIXME: busy loop! -arnd*/
- mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
if (dev->open)
goto unlock;
@@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ static int blktrans_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
unlock:
dev->open++;
- mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&dev->lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
blktrans_dev_put(dev);
return ret;
@@ -235,8 +235,8 @@ error_release:
error_put:
module_put(dev->tr->owner);
kref_put(&dev->ref, blktrans_dev_release);
- mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&dev->lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
blktrans_dev_put(dev);
return ret;
}
@@ -248,8 +248,8 @@ static void blktrans_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
if (!dev)
return;
- mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
mutex_lock(&mtd_table_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&dev->lock);
if (--dev->open)
goto unlock;
@@ -263,8 +263,8 @@ static void blktrans_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
__put_mtd_device(dev->mtd);
}
unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&dev->lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&mtd_table_mutex);
blktrans_dev_put(dev);
}
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/