From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: <ast@fb.com>, <daniel@iogearbox.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf v3] bpf/tracing: fix a deadlock in perf_event_detach_bpf_prog
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:21:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180410072139.323589-1-yhs@fb.com> (raw)
syzbot reported a possible deadlock in perf_event_detach_bpf_prog.
The error details:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.16.0-rc7+ #3 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor7/24531 is trying to acquire lock:
(bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<000000008a849b07>] perf_event_detach_bpf_prog+0x92/0x3d0 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:854
but task is already holding lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: [<0000000038768f87>] vm_mmap_pgoff+0x198/0x280 mm/util.c:353
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
__might_fault+0x13a/0x1d0 mm/memory.c:4571
_copy_to_user+0x2c/0xc0 lib/usercopy.c:25
copy_to_user include/linux/uaccess.h:155 [inline]
bpf_prog_array_copy_info+0xf2/0x1c0 kernel/bpf/core.c:1694
perf_event_query_prog_array+0x1c7/0x2c0 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:891
_perf_ioctl kernel/events/core.c:4750 [inline]
perf_ioctl+0x3e1/0x1480 kernel/events/core.c:4770
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:46 [inline]
do_vfs_ioctl+0x1b1/0x1520 fs/ioctl.c:686
SYSC_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:701 [inline]
SyS_ioctl+0x8f/0xc0 fs/ioctl.c:692
do_syscall_64+0x281/0x940 arch/x86/entry/common.c:287
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x42/0xb7
-> #0 (bpf_event_mutex){+.+.}:
lock_acquire+0x1d5/0x580 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3920
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:756 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x16f/0x1a80 kernel/locking/mutex.c:893
mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20 kernel/locking/mutex.c:908
perf_event_detach_bpf_prog+0x92/0x3d0 kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c:854
perf_event_free_bpf_prog kernel/events/core.c:8147 [inline]
_free_event+0xbdb/0x10f0 kernel/events/core.c:4116
put_event+0x24/0x30 kernel/events/core.c:4204
perf_mmap_close+0x60d/0x1010 kernel/events/core.c:5172
remove_vma+0xb4/0x1b0 mm/mmap.c:172
remove_vma_list mm/mmap.c:2490 [inline]
do_munmap+0x82a/0xdf0 mm/mmap.c:2731
mmap_region+0x59e/0x15a0 mm/mmap.c:1646
do_mmap+0x6c0/0xe00 mm/mmap.c:1483
do_mmap_pgoff include/linux/mm.h:2223 [inline]
vm_mmap_pgoff+0x1de/0x280 mm/util.c:355
SYSC_mmap_pgoff mm/mmap.c:1533 [inline]
SyS_mmap_pgoff+0x462/0x5f0 mm/mmap.c:1491
SYSC_mmap arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:100 [inline]
SyS_mmap+0x16/0x20 arch/x86/kernel/sys_x86_64.c:91
do_syscall_64+0x281/0x940 arch/x86/entry/common.c:287
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x42/0xb7
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(bpf_event_mutex);
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(bpf_event_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
======================================================
The bug is introduced by Commit f371b304f12e ("bpf/tracing: allow
user space to query prog array on the same tp") where copy_to_user,
which requires mm->mmap_sem, is called inside bpf_event_mutex lock.
At the same time, during perf_event file descriptor close,
mm->mmap_sem is held first and then subsequent
perf_event_detach_bpf_prog needs bpf_event_mutex lock.
Such a senario caused a deadlock.
As suggested by Danial, moving copy_to_user out of the
bpf_event_mutex lock should fix the problem.
Fixes: f371b304f12e ("bpf/tracing: allow user space to query prog array on the same tp")
Reported-by: syzbot+dc5ca0e4c9bfafaf2bae@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
---
include/linux/bpf.h | 4 ++--
kernel/bpf/core.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Changelog:
v2 -> v3:
. Remove the redundant label in function perf_event_query_prog_array.
v1 -> v2:
. Use the common core function for prog_id copying for two
different prog_array copy routines, suggested by Alexei.
diff --git a/include/linux/bpf.h b/include/linux/bpf.h
index 95a7abd..486e65e 100644
--- a/include/linux/bpf.h
+++ b/include/linux/bpf.h
@@ -339,8 +339,8 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs,
void bpf_prog_array_delete_safe(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs,
struct bpf_prog *old_prog);
int bpf_prog_array_copy_info(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *array,
- __u32 __user *prog_ids, u32 request_cnt,
- __u32 __user *prog_cnt);
+ u32 *prog_ids, u32 request_cnt,
+ u32 *prog_cnt);
int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *old_array,
struct bpf_prog *exclude_prog,
struct bpf_prog *include_prog,
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
index d315b39..ba03ec3 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
@@ -1572,13 +1572,32 @@ int bpf_prog_array_length(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs)
return cnt;
}
+static bool bpf_prog_array_copy_core(struct bpf_prog **prog,
+ u32 *prog_ids,
+ u32 request_cnt)
+{
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (; *prog; prog++) {
+ if (*prog == &dummy_bpf_prog.prog)
+ continue;
+ prog_ids[i] = (*prog)->aux->id;
+ if (++i == request_cnt) {
+ prog++;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return !!(*prog);
+}
+
int bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs,
__u32 __user *prog_ids, u32 cnt)
{
struct bpf_prog **prog;
unsigned long err = 0;
- u32 i = 0, *ids;
bool nospc;
+ u32 *ids;
/* users of this function are doing:
* cnt = bpf_prog_array_length();
@@ -1595,16 +1614,7 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *progs,
return -ENOMEM;
rcu_read_lock();
prog = rcu_dereference(progs)->progs;
- for (; *prog; prog++) {
- if (*prog == &dummy_bpf_prog.prog)
- continue;
- ids[i] = (*prog)->aux->id;
- if (++i == cnt) {
- prog++;
- break;
- }
- }
- nospc = !!(*prog);
+ nospc = bpf_prog_array_copy_core(prog, ids, cnt);
rcu_read_unlock();
err = copy_to_user(prog_ids, ids, cnt * sizeof(u32));
kfree(ids);
@@ -1683,22 +1693,25 @@ int bpf_prog_array_copy(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *old_array,
}
int bpf_prog_array_copy_info(struct bpf_prog_array __rcu *array,
- __u32 __user *prog_ids, u32 request_cnt,
- __u32 __user *prog_cnt)
+ u32 *prog_ids, u32 request_cnt,
+ u32 *prog_cnt)
{
+ struct bpf_prog **prog;
u32 cnt = 0;
if (array)
cnt = bpf_prog_array_length(array);
- if (copy_to_user(prog_cnt, &cnt, sizeof(cnt)))
- return -EFAULT;
+ *prog_cnt = cnt;
/* return early if user requested only program count or nothing to copy */
if (!request_cnt || !cnt)
return 0;
- return bpf_prog_array_copy_to_user(array, prog_ids, request_cnt);
+ /* this function is called under trace/bpf_trace.c: bpf_event_mutex */
+ prog = rcu_dereference_check(array, 1)->progs;
+ return bpf_prog_array_copy_core(prog, prog_ids, request_cnt) ? -ENOSPC
+ : 0;
}
static void bpf_prog_free_deferred(struct work_struct *work)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index d88e96d..f505d43 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@ -977,6 +977,7 @@ int perf_event_query_prog_array(struct perf_event *event, void __user *info)
{
struct perf_event_query_bpf __user *uquery = info;
struct perf_event_query_bpf query = {};
+ u32 *ids, prog_cnt, ids_len;
int ret;
if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
@@ -985,16 +986,26 @@ int perf_event_query_prog_array(struct perf_event *event, void __user *info)
return -EINVAL;
if (copy_from_user(&query, uquery, sizeof(query)))
return -EFAULT;
- if (query.ids_len > BPF_TRACE_MAX_PROGS)
+
+ ids_len = query.ids_len;
+ if (ids_len > BPF_TRACE_MAX_PROGS)
return -E2BIG;
+ ids = kcalloc(ids_len, sizeof(u32), GFP_USER | __GFP_NOWARN);
+ if (!ids)
+ return -ENOMEM;
mutex_lock(&bpf_event_mutex);
ret = bpf_prog_array_copy_info(event->tp_event->prog_array,
- uquery->ids,
- query.ids_len,
- &uquery->prog_cnt);
+ ids,
+ ids_len,
+ &prog_cnt);
mutex_unlock(&bpf_event_mutex);
+ if (copy_to_user(&uquery->prog_cnt, &prog_cnt, sizeof(prog_cnt)) ||
+ copy_to_user(uquery->ids, ids, ids_len * sizeof(u32)))
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+
+ kfree(ids);
return ret;
}
--
2.9.5
next reply other threads:[~2018-04-10 7:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-10 7:21 Yonghong Song [this message]
2018-04-10 8:54 ` [PATCH bpf v3] bpf/tracing: fix a deadlock in perf_event_detach_bpf_prog Daniel Borkmann
2018-04-10 16:04 ` Yonghong Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180410072139.323589-1-yhs@fb.com \
--to=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.