Re: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage in modeset_lock

From: Dmitry Vyukov
Date: Fri Dec 18 2020 - 06:28:05 EST

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 2:30 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:21:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:03:20AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 5:16 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:52:06AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:14 AM syzbot
> > > > > <syzbot+972b924c988834e868b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > syzbot found the following issue on:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HEAD commit: 94801e5c Merge tag 'pinctrl-v5.10-3' of git://git.kernel.o..
> > > > > > git tree: upstream
> > > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=130558c5500000
> > > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=ee8a1012a5314210
> > > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=972b924c988834e868b2
> > > > > > compiler: gcc (GCC) 10.1.0-syz 20200507
> > > > > > userspace arch: i386
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+972b924c988834e868b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =============================
> > > > > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > > > 5.10.0-rc7-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> > > > > > -----------------------------
> > > > > > kernel/sched/core.c:7270 Illegal context switch in RCU-sched read-side critical section!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 0
> > > > > > 7 locks held by syz-executor.1/9232:
> > > > > > #0: ffffffff8b328c60 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: do_fb_ioctl+0x2e4/0x690 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:1106
> > > > > > #1: ffff888041bd4078 (&fb_info->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: lock_fb_info include/linux/fb.h:636 [inline]
> > > > > > #1: ffff888041bd4078 (&fb_info->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: do_fb_ioctl+0x2ee/0x690 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:1107
> > > > > > #2: ffff888041adca78 (&helper->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_fb_helper_pan_display+0xce/0x970 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c:1448
> > > > > > #3: ffff8880159f01b8 (&dev->master_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_master_internal_acquire+0x1d/0x70 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c:407
> > > > > > #4: ffff888041adc898 (&client->modeset_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_client_modeset_commit_locked+0x44/0x580 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c:1143
> > > > > > #5: ffffc90001c07730 (crtc_ww_class_acquire){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: drm_client_modeset_commit_atomic+0xb7/0x7c0 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c:981
> > > > > > #6: ffff888015986108 (crtc_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: ww_mutex_lock_slow include/linux/ww_mutex.h:287 [inline]
> > > > > > #6: ffff888015986108 (crtc_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: modeset_lock+0x31c/0x650 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:260
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that we managed to take all these locks without upsetting anyone
> > > > > the rcu section is very deep down. And looking at the backtrace below
> > > > > I just couldn't find anything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best I can think of is that an interrupt of some sort leaked an rcu
> > > > > section, and we got shot here. But I'd assume the rcu debugging would
> > > > > catch this? Backtrace of the start of that rcu read side section would
> > > > > be really useful here, but I'm not seeing that in the logs. There's
> > > > > more stuff there, but it's just the usual "everything falls apart"
> > > > > stuff of little value to understanding how we got there.
> > > >
> > > > In my experience, lockdep will indeed complain if an interrupt handler
> > > > returns while in an RCU read-side critical section.
> > > >
> > > > > Adding some rcu people for more insights on what could have gone wrong here.
> > > > > -Daniel
> > > > >
> > > > > > stack backtrace:
> > > > > > CPU: 1 PID: 9232 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.10.0-rc7-syzkaller #0
> > > > > > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.12.0-59-gc9ba5276e321-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> > > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > > __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
> > > > > > dump_stack+0x107/0x163 lib/dump_stack.c:118
> > > > > > ___might_sleep+0x25d/0x2b0 kernel/sched/core.c:7270
> > > > > > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:935 [inline]
> > > > > > __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.0+0xa9/0x2cc0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1111
> > > > > > ww_mutex_lock+0x3d/0x170 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1190
> > > >
> > > > Acquiring a mutex while under the influence of rcu_read_lock() will
> > > > definitely get you this lockdep complaint, and rightfully so.
> > > >
> > > > If you need to acquire a mutex with RCU-like protection, one approach
> > > > is to use SRCU. But usually this indicates (as you suspected) that
> > > > someone forgot to invoke rcu_read_unlock().
> > > >
> > > > One way to locate this is to enlist the aid of lockdep. You can do this
> > > > by putting something like this in the callers:
> > > >
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
> > > > "We are in an RCU read-side critical section");
> > > >
> > > > This will get you a lockdep complaint much like the one above if the
> > > > caller is in any sort of RCU read-side critical section. You can push
> > > > this up the call stack one level at a time or just sprinkle it up the
> > > > stack in one go.
> > > >
> > > > The complaint is specifically about RCU-sched, so you could focus on
> > > > that using this instead:
> > > >
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
> > > > "We are in an RCU-sched read-side critical section");
> > > >
> > > > This of course assumes that this is reproducible. :-/
> > > >
> > > > But even if it isn't reproducible, for example, if the mutex is only
> > > > acquired occasionally, these RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN() calls can be used to
> > > > check assumptions about state.
> > >
> > > I think we're tripping over the might_sleep() all the mutexes have,
> > > and that's not as good as yours, but good enough to catch a missing
> > > rcu_read_unlock(). That's kinda why I'm baffled, since like almost
> > > every 2nd function in the backtrace grabbed a mutex and it was all
> > > fine until the very last.
> > >
> > > I think it would be really nice if the rcu checks could retain (in
> > > debugging only) the backtrace of the outermost rcu_read_lock, so we
> > > could print that when something goes wrong in cases where it's leaked.
> > > For normal locks lockdep does that already (well not full backtrace I
> > > think, just the function that acquired the lock, but that's often
> > > enough). I guess that doesn't exist yet?
> >
> > I thought that lockdep kept those traces in order to print them in
> > deadlock reports. Adding Boqun for his perspective.
> >
>
> I'm afraid it's not the same as you expect. So yes, lockdep will keep
> traces, however, lockdep only keep one trace entry for one usage
> *class*, for example, if you have two function foo() and bar():
>
> void foo(void)
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> }
>
> void bar(void)
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> }
>
> , and during runtime, both are called in thread contexts with irq
> enabled. There will be only one trace (the first one that lockdep see)
> getting recorded ;-(
>
> That said, from the held lock status for this splat, I don't see a
> rcu_read_lock_sched() is held, so I guess that the RCU read-side
> critical section is introduced by a preempt_disable() rather than a
> explicit rcu_read_lock_sched(), if that's the case, lockdep cannot help
> either, because after all preempt_disable() is not a lock, lockdep won't
> keep a trace for it.
>
> Maybe preemption tracing can help here?

Hi Boqun,

Lockdep can print similar info for hard/softirqs disable in
print_irqtrace_events:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/locking/lockdep.c#L3896
This looks somewhat similar to what would help for preempt_disable.
Would it be reasonable for lockdep to record and print the last
disable PC to provide a more complete execution context picture?


> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Also yes without reproducer this is kinda tough nut to crack.
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > > > modeset_lock+0x392/0x650 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:263
> > > > > > drm_modeset_lock drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:342 [inline]
> > > > > > drm_modeset_lock+0x50/0x90 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_modeset_lock.c:338
> > > > > > drm_atomic_get_plane_state+0x19d/0x510 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:481
> > > > > > drm_client_modeset_commit_atomic+0x225/0x7c0 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c:994
> > > > > > drm_client_modeset_commit_locked+0x145/0x580 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_client_modeset.c:1145
> > > > > > pan_display_atomic drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c:1395 [inline]
> > > > > > drm_fb_helper_pan_display+0x28b/0x970 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c:1455
> > > > > > fb_pan_display+0x2f7/0x6c0 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:925
> > > > > > fb_set_var+0x57f/0xda0 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:1043
> > > > > > do_fb_ioctl+0x2f9/0x690 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:1108
> > > > > > fb_compat_ioctl+0x17c/0xaf0 drivers/video/fbdev/core/fbmem.c:1315
> > > > > > __do_compat_sys_ioctl+0x1d3/0x230 fs/ioctl.c:842
> > > > > > do_syscall_32_irqs_on arch/x86/entry/common.c:78 [inline]
> > > > > > __do_fast_syscall_32+0x56/0x80 arch/x86/entry/common.c:137
> > > > > > do_fast_syscall_32+0x2f/0x70 arch/x86/entry/common.c:160
> > > > > > entry_SYSENTER_compat_after_hwframe+0x4d/0x5c
> > > > > > RIP: 0023:0xf7fd8549
> > > > > > Code: 03 74 c0 01 10 05 03 74 b8 01 10 06 03 74 b4 01 10 07 03 74 b0 01 10 08 03 74 d8 01 00 00 00 00 00 51 52 55 89 e5 0f 34 cd 80 <5d> 5a 59 c3 90 90 90 90 eb 0d 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
> > > > > > RSP: 002b:00000000f55d20bc EFLAGS: 00000296 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000036
> > > > > > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 0000000000004601
> > > > > > RDX: 0000000020000240 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > > > > > detected fb_set_par error, error code: -16
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > This report 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
> > > > > > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "syzkaller-bugs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syzkaller-bugs+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syzkaller-bugs/X9wGBcCnhxr36WF4%40boqun-archlinux.