Re: possible deadlock in open_rio (2)

From: Andrey Konovalov
Date: Tue Sep 17 2019 - 08:11:39 EST

Next message: Andrey Konovalov: "Re: possible deadlock in open_rio (3)"
Previous message: Kirill A. Shutemov: "Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in shmem_fault (2)"
In reply to: Alan Stern: "Re: possible deadlock in open_rio (2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:40 PM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, syzbot wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > syzbot found the following crash on:
> >
> > HEAD commit: f0df5c1b usb-fuzzer: main usb gadget fuzzer driver
> > git tree: https://github.com/google/kasan.git usb-fuzzer
> > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=11512cd1600000
> > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=5c6633fa4ed00be5
> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=19cf612d23f66bc19f22
> > compiler: gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
> > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=16f92c6e600000
> > C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=10b9b85e600000
> >
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+19cf612d23f66bc19f22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 5.3.0-rc7+ #0 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > syz-executor071/1724 is trying to acquire lock:
> > 00000000f749c934 (rio500_mutex){+.+.}, at: open_rio+0x16/0xe0
> > drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > 000000009c24ba51 (minor_rwsem){++++}, at: usb_open+0x23/0x270
> > drivers/usb/core/file.c:39
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #1 (minor_rwsem){++++}:
> > down_write+0x92/0x150 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1500
> > usb_register_dev drivers/usb/core/file.c:187 [inline]
> > usb_register_dev+0x131/0x670 drivers/usb/core/file.c:156
> > probe_rio.cold+0x53/0x237 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:474
> > usb_probe_interface+0x305/0x7a0 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:361
> > really_probe+0x281/0x6d0 drivers/base/dd.c:548
> > driver_probe_device+0x101/0x1b0 drivers/base/dd.c:721
> > __device_attach_driver+0x1c2/0x220 drivers/base/dd.c:828
> > bus_for_each_drv+0x162/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:454
> > __device_attach+0x217/0x360 drivers/base/dd.c:894
> > bus_probe_device+0x1e4/0x290 drivers/base/bus.c:514
> > device_add+0xae6/0x16f0 drivers/base/core.c:2165
> > usb_set_configuration+0xdf6/0x1670 drivers/usb/core/message.c:2023
> > generic_probe+0x9d/0xd5 drivers/usb/core/generic.c:210
> > usb_probe_device+0x99/0x100 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:266
> > really_probe+0x281/0x6d0 drivers/base/dd.c:548
> > driver_probe_device+0x101/0x1b0 drivers/base/dd.c:721
> > __device_attach_driver+0x1c2/0x220 drivers/base/dd.c:828
> > bus_for_each_drv+0x162/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:454
> > __device_attach+0x217/0x360 drivers/base/dd.c:894
> > bus_probe_device+0x1e4/0x290 drivers/base/bus.c:514
> > device_add+0xae6/0x16f0 drivers/base/core.c:2165
> > usb_new_device.cold+0x6a4/0xe79 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:2536
> > hub_port_connect drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5098 [inline]
> > hub_port_connect_change drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5213 [inline]
> > port_event drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5359 [inline]
> > hub_event+0x1b5c/0x3640 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5441
> > process_one_work+0x92b/0x1530 kernel/workqueue.c:2269
> > worker_thread+0x96/0xe20 kernel/workqueue.c:2415
> > kthread+0x318/0x420 kernel/kthread.c:255
> > ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:352
> >
> > -> #0 (rio500_mutex){+.+.}:
> > check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2405 [inline]
> > check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2507 [inline]
> > validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2897 [inline]
> > __lock_acquire+0x1f7c/0x3b50 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3880
> > lock_acquire+0x127/0x320 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4412
> > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:930 [inline]
> > __mutex_lock+0x158/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1077
> > open_rio+0x16/0xe0 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
> > usb_open+0x1df/0x270 drivers/usb/core/file.c:48
> > chrdev_open+0x219/0x5c0 fs/char_dev.c:414
> > do_dentry_open+0x494/0x1120 fs/open.c:797
> > do_last fs/namei.c:3416 [inline]
> > path_openat+0x1430/0x3f50 fs/namei.c:3533
> > do_filp_open+0x1a1/0x280 fs/namei.c:3563
> > do_sys_open+0x3c0/0x580 fs/open.c:1089
> > do_syscall_64+0xb7/0x580 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > lock(minor_rwsem);
> > lock(rio500_mutex);
> > lock(minor_rwsem);
> > lock(rio500_mutex);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > 1 lock held by syz-executor071/1724:
> > #0: 000000009c24ba51 (minor_rwsem){++++}, at: usb_open+0x23/0x270
> > drivers/usb/core/file.c:39
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 0 PID: 1724 Comm: syz-executor071 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc7+ #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
> > Google 01/01/2011
> > Call Trace:
> > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
> > dump_stack+0xca/0x13e lib/dump_stack.c:113
> > check_noncircular+0x345/0x3e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1741
> > check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2405 [inline]
> > check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2507 [inline]
> > validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2897 [inline]
> > __lock_acquire+0x1f7c/0x3b50 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3880
> > lock_acquire+0x127/0x320 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4412
> > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:930 [inline]
> > __mutex_lock+0x158/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1077
> > open_rio+0x16/0xe0 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
> > usb_open+0x1df/0x270 drivers/usb/core/file.c:48
> > chrdev_open+0x219/0x5c0 fs/char_dev.c:414
> > do_dentry_open+0x494/0x1120 fs/open.c:797
> > do_last fs/namei.c:3416 [inline]
> > path_openat+0x1430/0x3f50 fs/namei.c:3533
> > do_filp_open+0x1a1/0x280 fs/namei.c:3563
> > do_sys_open+0x3c0/0x580 fs/open.c:1089
> > do_syscall_64+0xb7/0x580 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > RIP: 0033:0x401130
> > Code: 01 f0 ff ff 0f 83 00 0b 00 00 c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f
> > 44 00 00 83 3d 5d 0c 2d 00 00 75 14 b8 02 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff
> > ff 0f 83 d4 0a 00 00 c3 48 83 ec 08 e8 3a 00 00 00
> > RSP: 002b:00007ffca0216788 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000002
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00000000004002c8 RCX: 0000000000401130
> > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 00007ffca02167a0
> > RBP: 00000000006cb018 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 000000000000000f
> > R10: 0000000000000064 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000402090
> > R13: 0000000000402120 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This bug is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
> > See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
> > syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > syzbot will keep track of this bug report. See:
> > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
> > syzbot can test patches for this bug, for details see:
> > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#testing-patches
>
> This is undoubted the same as the previous bug report. It should be
> fixed by commit 9472aff16ca0 in Greg KH's usb-next branch, but the
> fix is not yet in Linus's tree.
>
> #syz dup: possible deadlock in open_rio

Yeah, this one is confusing. If we look at the dashboard [1] we see
that the fixing commit for the original bug is "Revert "USB: rio500:
simplify locking"", which is in the usb-testing tree (btw, I've
switched syzbot from usb-next to usb-testing, as it looked more
relevant). So syzbot saw the Reported-by tag on that commit, and
decided that the fix is applied, so if another bug with the same
manifestation happens, it must be a different bug and should be
reported. Syzbot has no way to know that commit 9472aff16ca0 (with the
same Reported-by tag as "Revert "USB: rio500: simplify locking") is
the proper fix for this issue.

Since you've marked this bug as a dup of a fixed bug with the fix
applied to syzbot's tree, syzbot reported another one named "possible
deadlock in open_rio (3)". I'm going to manually mark that one as
fixed by commit 9472aff16ca0.

https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=5b6785f7f0febf30e2133fa6e6dab81683ffa1b5

Next message: Andrey Konovalov: "Re: possible deadlock in open_rio (3)"
Previous message: Kirill A. Shutemov: "Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in shmem_fault (2)"
In reply to: Alan Stern: "Re: possible deadlock in open_rio (2)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]