Re: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Tue Nov 16 2021 - 11:59:31 EST
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 04:35:07PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:58:44 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 03:49:37PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > Fix two sleeping functions called from atomic context by doing immediate
> > > return to the caller if !preemptible() evaluates 'true'. Remove two
> > > in_interrupt() tests because they are not suited for being used here.
> > >
> > > Since functions do_con_write() and con_flush_chars() might sleep in
> > > console_lock(), it must be assured that they are never executed in
> > > atomic contexts.
> > >
> > > This issue is reported by Syzbot which notices that they are executed
> > > while holding spinlocks and with interrupts disabled. Actually Syzbot
> > > emits a first report and then, after fixing do_con_write(), a second
> > > report for the same problem in con_flush_chars() because these functions
> > > are called one after the other by con_write().
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Suggested-by: Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/tty/vt/vt.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > index 7359c3e80d63..508f8a56d361 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> > > @@ -2902,7 +2902,7 @@ static int do_con_write(struct tty_struct *tty,
> const unsigned char *buf, int co
> > > struct vt_notifier_param param;
> > > bool rescan;
> > >
> > > - if (in_interrupt())
> > > + if (!preemptible())
> > > return count;
> > Very odd, what code is calling these functions to trigger this check?
> This is the call trace reported by Syzbot (https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?
> Call Trace:
> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
> dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
> __might_resched.cold+0x222/0x26b kernel/sched/core.c:9539
> console_lock+0x17/0x80 kernel/printk/printk.c:2522
> do_con_write+0x10f/0x1e40 drivers/tty/vt/vt.c:2908
> con_write+0x21/0x40 drivers/tty/vt/vt.c:3295
> n_hdlc_send_frames+0x24b/0x490 drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:290
> tty_wakeup+0xe1/0x120 drivers/tty/tty_io.c:534
> __start_tty drivers/tty/tty_io.c:806 [inline]
> __start_tty+0xfb/0x130 drivers/tty/tty_io.c:799
> n_tty_ioctl_helper+0x299/0x2d0 drivers/tty/tty_ioctl.c:880
> n_tty_ioctl_helper() disabled interrupts via spin_lock_irq(&tty->flow.lock).
> n_hdlc_tty_ioctl+0xd2/0x340 drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c:633
> tty_ioctl+0xc69/0x1670 drivers/tty/tty_io.c:2814
> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline]
> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline]
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860
> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> > Shouldn't the caller be fixed instead?
> Maybe that the caller has no need to disable IRQs, but I cannot yet answer to
> this particular question.
> > What changed to suddenly cause this to show up?
> Commit c545b66c6922 ("tty: Serialize tcflow() with other tty flow control
> changes") introduced a call to spin_lock_irq() for command "TCOON", just
> before calling __start_tty().
That commit happened in 2014. Why is this suddenly an issue now that no
one ever saw before?
I am worried you are not actually fixing the real issue here by just
making syzbot be quiet. Can you work to figure out what the real issue