kvm: deadlock in kvm_vgic_map_resources
Marc Zyngier
marc.zyngier at arm.com
Thu Jan 12 02:30:39 PST 2017
On 12/01/17 09:55, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/01/17 09:32, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> On 11/01/17 19:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> While running syzkaller fuzzer I've got the following deadlock.
>>> On commit 9c763584b7c8911106bb77af7e648bef09af9d80.
>>>
>>>
>>> =============================================
>>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>>> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50 Not tainted
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> syz-executor/20805 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> (
>>> &kvm->lock
>>> ){+.+.+.}
>>> , at:
>>> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
>>> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> (&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
>>> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>> CPU0
>>> ----
>>> lock(&kvm->lock);
>>> lock(&kvm->lock);
>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>>> 2 locks held by syz-executor/20805:
>>> #0:(&vcpu->mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
>>> [<ffff2000080bcc30>] vcpu_load+0x28/0x1d0
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:143
>>> #1:(&kvm->lock){+.+.+.}, at:
>>> [<ffff2000080ea7e4>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0x2c/0x108
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:343
>>> stack backtrace:
>>> CPU: 2 PID: 20805 Comm: syz-executor Not tainted
>>> 4.9.0-rc6-xc2-00056-g08372dd4b91d-dirty #50
>>> Hardware name: Hardkernel ODROID-C2 (DT)
>>> Call trace:
>>> [<ffff200008090560>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x3c8 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:69
>>> [<ffff200008090948>] show_stack+0x20/0x30 arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:219
>>> [< inline >] __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15
>>> [<ffff200008895840>] dump_stack+0x100/0x150 lib/dump_stack.c:51
>>> [< inline >] print_deadlock_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1728
>>> [< inline >] check_deadlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1772
>>> [< inline >] validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2250
>>> [<ffff2000081c8718>] __lock_acquire+0x1938/0x3440 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3335
>>> [<ffff2000081caa84>] lock_acquire+0xdc/0x1d8 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3746
>>> [< inline >] __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:521
>>> [<ffff200009700004>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x7b8 kernel/locking/mutex.c:621
>>> [< inline >] kvm_vgic_dist_destroy
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:271
>>> [<ffff2000080ea4bc>] kvm_vgic_destroy+0x34/0x250
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:294
>>> [<ffff2000080ec290>] vgic_v2_map_resources+0x218/0x430
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c:295
>>> [<ffff2000080ea884>] kvm_vgic_map_resources+0xcc/0x108
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c:348
>>> [< inline >] kvm_vcpu_first_run_init
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:505
>>> [<ffff2000080d2768>] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0xab8/0xce0
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../arch/arm/kvm/arm.c:591
>>> [<ffff2000080c1fec>] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x434/0xc08
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:2557
>>> [< inline >] vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:43
>>> [<ffff200008450c38>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x128/0xfc0 fs/ioctl.c:679
>>> [< inline >] SYSC_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:694
>>> [<ffff200008451b78>] SyS_ioctl+0xa8/0xb8 fs/ioctl.c:685
>>> [<ffff200008083ef0>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:755
>>
>> Nice catch, and many thanks for reporting this.
>>
>> The bug is fairly obvious. Christoffer, what do you think? I don't think
>> we need to hold the kvm->lock all the way, but I'd like another pair of
>> eyes (the coffee machine is out of order again, and tea doesn't cut it).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> M.
>>
>> From 93f80b20fb9351a49ee8b74eed3fc59c84651371 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:56 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Fix deadlock on error handling
>>
>> Dmitry Vyukov reported that the syzkaller fuzzer triggered a
>> deadlock in the vgic setup code when an error was detected, as
>> the cleanup code tries to take a lock that is already held by
>> the setup code.
>>
>> The fix is pretty obvious: move the cleaup call after having
>> dropped the lock, since not much can happen at that point.
> ^^^^^^^^
> Is that really true? If for instance the calls to
> vgic_register_dist_iodev() or kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() in
> vgic_v2_map_resources() fail, we leave the function with a half
> initialized VGIC (because vgic_init() succeeded).
But we only set dist->ready to true when everything went OK. How is
that an issue?
> Dropping the lock at
> this point without having the GIC cleaned up before sounds a bit
> suspicious (I may be wrong on this, though).
Thinking of it, that may open a race with vgic init call, leading to
leaking distributor memory.
>
> Can't we just document that kvm_vgic_destroy() needs to be called with
> the kvm->lock held and take the lock around the only other caller
> (kvm_arch_destroy_vm() in arch/arm/kvm/arm.c)?
> We can then keep holding the lock in the map_resources calls.
> Though we might still move the calls to kvm_vgic_destroy() into the
> wrapper function as a cleanup (as shown below), just before dropping the
> lock.
I'd rather keep the changes limited to the vgic code, and save myself
having to document more locking (we already have our fair share here).
How about this (untested):
>From 24dc3f5750da20d89e0ce9b7855d125d0100bee8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:21:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Fix deadlock on error handling
Dmitry Vyukov reported that the syzkaller fuzzer triggered a
deadlock in the vgic setup code when an error was detected, as
the cleanup code tries to take a lock that is already held by
the setup code.
The fix is to avoid retaking the lock when cleaning up, by
telling the cleanup function that we already hold it.
Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
---
virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 2 --
virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 2 --
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
index 5114391..30d74e2 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
@@ -264,11 +264,12 @@ int vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm)
return ret;
}
-static void kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
+static void kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(struct kvm *kvm, bool locked)
{
struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
- mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+ if (!locked)
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
dist->ready = false;
dist->initialized = false;
@@ -276,7 +277,8 @@ static void kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
kfree(dist->spis);
dist->nr_spis = 0;
- mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+ if (!locked)
+ mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
}
void kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
@@ -286,17 +288,22 @@ void kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_head);
}
-void kvm_vgic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
+static void kvm_vgic_destroy_locked(struct kvm *kvm, bool locked)
{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
int i;
- kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(kvm);
+ kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(kvm, locked);
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
kvm_vgic_vcpu_destroy(vcpu);
}
+void kvm_vgic_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+ kvm_vgic_destroy_locked(kvm, false);
+}
+
/**
* vgic_lazy_init: Lazy init is only allowed if the GIC exposed to the guest
* is a GICv2. A GICv3 must be explicitly initialized by the guest using the
@@ -348,6 +355,10 @@ int kvm_vgic_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
ret = vgic_v2_map_resources(kvm);
else
ret = vgic_v3_map_resources(kvm);
+
+ if (ret)
+ kvm_vgic_destroy_locked(kvm, true);
+
out:
mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
return ret;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
index 9bab867..834137e 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
@@ -293,8 +293,6 @@ int vgic_v2_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
dist->ready = true;
out:
- if (ret)
- kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
index 7df1b90..a4c7fff 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
@@ -308,8 +308,6 @@ int vgic_v3_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
dist->ready = true;
out:
- if (ret)
- kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
return ret;
}
--
2.1.4
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list