From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87D3C3A589 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:48:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8F1208C2 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:48:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565873305; bh=NCiJdr1vMhBC906bEb/ULDbBO7L3UNQu1IL+0iBh+Nk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=PoE53YIZNDQZyW/K7ca9mW5NBR8L+h1rmnqAg6YIfTlXTtzhsY1epvmb/1X0XOVz9 cFPkOsMtnKgU3KTI4+XSDkU9ITyycLK6xk+4BLEzX0mhXaWte8fAhMabCgJ+xG3/I1 Uhcz255wtobTDfLnnqUJBbLSenf8i9Q8KZ8UmzEk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731238AbfHOMsZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:48:25 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:36956 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725977AbfHOMsY (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:48:24 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E2042084D; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:48:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565873303; bh=NCiJdr1vMhBC906bEb/ULDbBO7L3UNQu1IL+0iBh+Nk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DwnRLmy4aLJWSxyZhOhhj5IM7VGL+nBl6pDsGSQmE2dt4/ef/MdAPrI3nOtguDzAr vsQktBmx9vIvmdmdT4sbiRC+0nXq6fiG9JypSGGx5VTo87aNpX2qOmXcdmHCgb/hQO EETfHDz00OdSsfOFk7VJ8UOiOJ/mS0MFogDBKHsc= Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:48:21 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Alan Stern Cc: Andrey Konovalov , Oliver Neukum , syzkaller-bugs , USB list Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: rio500: Fix lockdep violation Message-ID: <20190815124821.GA25619@kroah.com> References: <20190808175859.GA16092@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 02:23:00PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 01:34:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > The syzbot fuzzer found a lockdep violation in the rio500 driver: > > > > > > ====================================================== > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > > 5.3.0-rc2+ #23 Not tainted > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > syz-executor.2/20386 is trying to acquire lock: > > > 00000000772249c6 (rio500_mutex){+.+.}, at: open_rio+0x16/0xc0 > > > drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:64 > > > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > > 00000000d3e8f4b9 (minor_rwsem){++++}, at: usb_open+0x23/0x270 > > > drivers/usb/core/file.c:39 > > > > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > > > > The problem is that the driver's open_rio() routine is called while > > > the usbcore's minor_rwsem is locked for reading, and it acquires the > > > rio500_mutex; whereas conversely, probe_rio() and disconnect_rio() > > > first acquire the rio500_mutex and then call usb_register_dev() or > > > usb_deregister_dev(), which lock minor_rwsem for writing. > > > > > > The correct ordering of acquisition should be: minor_rwsem first, then > > > rio500_mutex (since the locking in open_rio() cannot be changed). > > > Thus, the probe and disconnect routines should avoid holding > > > rio500_mutex while doing their registration and deregistration. > > > > > > This patch adjusts the code in those two routines to do just that. It > > > also relies on the fact that the probe and disconnect routines are > > > protected by the device mutex, so the initial test of rio->present > > > needs no extra locking. > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+7bbcbe9c9ff0cd49592a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern > > > Fixes: d710734b0677 ("USB: rio500: simplify locking") > > > CC: Oliver Neukum > > > CC: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > This patch is different from the one I posted earlier. I realized that > > > we don't want to register the device's char file until after the > > > buffers have been allocated. > > > > Should I revert Oliver's patch? > > Sorry, I should have explained more clearly: This goes on top of > Oliver's patch. In fact, Oliver's patch is the one listed in the > Fixes: tag. > > You do not need to apply Oliver's reversion. Assuming he agrees that > this patch is correct, of course. Ok, I applied the revert, and that's in 5.3-rc4. So of course this does not apply :) Shoudl I revert the revert and then apply this? I will if I can get an ack from Oliver... thanks, greg k-h