lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] ftrace: fix recursive locking direct_mutex in ftrace_modify_direct_caller
Date
Hi Steven,

> On Sep 27, 2022, at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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>

Thanks for the review! Since this only touches ftrace code, please take
it through your tree.

Best,
Song

>
> -- 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>
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-27 19:49    [W:0.110 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site