Re: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Igor Matheus Andrade Torrente <igormtorrente@gmail.com>,
	nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 17:59:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YZPjbI/uCNtugFJZ@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2524108.PJBYKFOWIp@localhost.localdomain>

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@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Suggested-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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?
> id=fe5a4d5a2482bd73064db5de5d28e024f1e2a387):
> 
> Call Trace:
>  <TASK>
>  __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
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> 
> > 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
is please?

thanks,

greg k-h