[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vt: Fix sleeping functions called from atomic context
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 11:51:13 AM CET Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/11/17 17:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Great, you have a reproducer, so you should be able to duplicate this
> > locally to figure out what is really happening here.
> Until commit ac751efa6a0d70f2 ("console: rename acquire/release_console_sem() to
> console_lock/unlock()"), do_con_write() was surely designed to be able to sleep.
> > $ git blame ac751efa6a0d7~1 drivers/tty/vt/vt.c
> [...]
> Until that commit, n_hdlc_send_frames() was prepared for being interrupted by signal
> while sleeping.
> $ git blame ac751efa6a0d7~1 drivers/tty/n_hdlc.c
> [...]
> But as of commit c545b66c6922b002 ("tty: Serialize tcflow() with other tty flow
> control changes"), start_tty() was already holding spinlock.

Hi Tetsuo,

Actually, we don't care of start_tty(). It's not in the path that triggers sleeping in atomic bug.
According to Syzbot report and to my ftrace analysis it's __start_tty() that is called by
n_tty_ioctl_helper(), and it is this function that acquires a spinlock and disables interrupts.

I must admit that I've never used git-blame and I'm not sure to understand what you did here :(

Have you had a chance to read my analysis?

> $ git blame c545b66c6922b002~1 drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> [...]
> Actually, it is commit f9e053dcfc02b0ad ("tty: Serialize tty flow control changes
> with flow_lock") that started calling tty->ops->start(tty) from atomic context.
> $ git blame f9e053dcfc02b~1 drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> [...]
> Therefore, I think that bisection will reach f9e053dcfc02b0ad, and I guess that
> this bug was not noticed simply because little people tested n_hdlc driver.
> Well, how to fix? Introduce a new flag for indicating "starting" state (like drivers/block/loop.c uses Lo_* state) ?

I think this is not the correct fix, but I might very well be wrong...

Can you please reply to my last email (the one with the ftrace analysis)?
In the last lines I proposed two alternative solutions, what about them?



 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-18 09:32    [W:0.150 / U:1.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site