lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] modules: lockdep: Suppress suspicious RCU usage warning
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:17:59 +0100
Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org> wrote:

> +++ Masami Hiramatsu [03/12/19 15:14 +0900]:
> >While running kprobe module test, find_module_all() caused
> >a suspicious RCU usage warning.
> >
> >-----
> > =============================
> > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > 5.4.0-next-20191202+ #63 Not tainted
> > -----------------------------
> > kernel/module.c:619 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> >
> > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> > 1 lock held by rmmod/642:
> > #0: ffffffff8227da80 (module_mutex){+.+.}, at: __x64_sys_delete_module+0x9a/0x230
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 0 PID: 642 Comm: rmmod Not tainted 5.4.0-next-20191202+ #63
> > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.12.1-0-ga5cab58e9a3f-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> > Call Trace:
> > dump_stack+0x71/0xa0
> > find_module_all+0xc1/0xd0
> > __x64_sys_delete_module+0xac/0x230
> > ? do_syscall_64+0x12/0x1f0
> > do_syscall_64+0x50/0x1f0
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > RIP: 0033:0x4b6d49
> >-----
> >
> >This is because list_for_each_entry_rcu(modules) is called
> >without rcu_read_lock(). This is safe because the module_mutex
> >is locked.
> >
> >Pass lockdep_is_held(&module_lock) to the list_for_each_entry_rcu()
>
> s/module_lock/module_mutex/, but you don't have to respin the patch
> just for this.

Oops.

>
> >to suppress this warning, This also fixes similar issue in
> >mod_find() and each_symbol_section().
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
>
> Thanks Masami! This looks good. I'll queue this up shortly after the
> merge window.

Thank you for merging :)


>
> Jessica
>
> >---
> > kernel/module.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
> >index cb6250be6ee9..38e5c6a7451b 100644
> >--- a/kernel/module.c
> >+++ b/kernel/module.c
> >@@ -214,7 +214,8 @@ static struct module *mod_find(unsigned long addr)
> > {
> > struct module *mod;
> >
> >- list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) {
> >+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list,
> >+ lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
> > if (within_module(addr, mod))
> > return mod;
> > }
> >@@ -448,7 +449,8 @@ bool each_symbol_section(bool (*fn)(const struct symsearch *arr,
> > if (each_symbol_in_section(arr, ARRAY_SIZE(arr), NULL, fn, data))
> > return true;
> >
> >- list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) {
> >+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list,
> >+ lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
> > struct symsearch arr[] = {
> > { mod->syms, mod->syms + mod->num_syms, mod->crcs,
> > NOT_GPL_ONLY, false },
> >@@ -616,7 +618,8 @@ static struct module *find_module_all(const char *name, size_t len,
> >
> > module_assert_mutex_or_preempt();
> >
> >- list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list) {
> >+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(mod, &modules, list,
> >+ lockdep_is_held(&module_mutex)) {
> > if (!even_unformed && mod->state == MODULE_STATE_UNFORMED)
> > continue;
> > if (strlen(mod->name) == len && !memcmp(mod->name, name, len))
> >


--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-06 02:22    [W:0.037 / U:4.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site