Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:35:00 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ftrace: fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller |
| |
Minor nit, just change the subject to start with a capital letter.
ftrace: Fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller
Other than that, this looks good.
Do you want to put this through your tree, or do you want me to take it?
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:41:46 -0700 Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
> Naveen reported recursive locking of direct_mutex with sample > ftrace-direct-modify.ko: > > [ 74.762406] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > [ 74.762887] 6.0.0-rc6+ #33 Not tainted > [ 74.763216] -------------------------------------------- > [ 74.763672] event-sample-fn/1084 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 74.764152] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \ > register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.764922] > [ 74.764922] but task is already holding lock: > [ 74.765421] ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \ > modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0 > [ 74.766142] > [ 74.766142] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 74.766701] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 74.766701] > [ 74.767216] CPU0 > [ 74.767437] ---- > [ 74.767656] lock(direct_mutex); > [ 74.767952] lock(direct_mutex); > [ 74.768245] > [ 74.768245] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 74.768245] > [ 74.768750] May be due to missing lock nesting notation > [ 74.768750] > [ 74.769332] 1 lock held by event-sample-fn/1084: > [ 74.769731] #0: ffffffff86c9d6b0 (direct_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: \ > modify_ftrace_direct+0x34/0x1f0 > [ 74.770496] > [ 74.770496] stack backtrace: > [ 74.770884] CPU: 4 PID: 1084 Comm: event-sample-fn Not tainted ... > [ 74.771498] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), ... > [ 74.772474] Call Trace: > [ 74.772696] <TASK> > [ 74.772896] dump_stack_lvl+0x44/0x5b > [ 74.773223] __lock_acquire.cold.74+0xac/0x2b7 > [ 74.773616] lock_acquire+0xd2/0x310 > [ 74.773936] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.774357] ? lock_is_held_type+0xd8/0x130 > [ 74.774744] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.775213] __mutex_lock+0x99/0x1010 > [ 74.775536] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.775954] ? slab_free_freelist_hook.isra.43+0x115/0x160 > [ 74.776424] ? ftrace_set_hash+0x195/0x220 > [ 74.776779] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.777194] ? kfree+0x3e1/0x440 > [ 74.777482] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.777941] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40 > [ 74.778258] ? register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.778672] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.779128] register_ftrace_function+0x1f/0x180 > [ 74.779527] ? ftrace_set_filter_ip+0x33/0x70 > [ 74.779910] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40 > [ 74.780231] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.780678] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.781147] ftrace_modify_direct_caller+0x5b/0x90 > [ 74.781563] ? 0xffffffffa0201000 > [ 74.781859] ? my_tramp1+0xf/0xf [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.782309] modify_ftrace_direct+0x1b2/0x1f0 > [ 74.782690] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40 > [ 74.783014] ? simple_thread+0x2a/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.783508] ? __schedule+0xb40/0xb40 > [ 74.783832] ? my_tramp2+0x11/0x11 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.784294] simple_thread+0x76/0xb0 [ftrace_direct_modify] > [ 74.784766] kthread+0xf5/0x120 > [ 74.785052] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20 > [ 74.785464] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 > [ 74.785781] </TASK> > > Fix this by using register_ftrace_function_nolock in > ftrace_modify_direct_caller. > > Fixes: 53cd885bc5c3 ("ftrace: Allow IPMODIFY and DIRECT ops on the same function") > Reported-and-tested-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org> >
| |