1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
|
From 28e1b4326abcc66839c6e21dd410fe983ee83fb3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:12:28 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] security: device_cgroup: fix RCU lockdep splat
while booting AM437x device, the following splat
triggered:
[ 12.005238] ===============================
[ 12.009749] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[ 12.014116] 4.2.0-next-20150831 #1154 Not tainted
[ 12.019050] -------------------------------
[ 12.023408] security/device_cgroup.c:405 device_cgroup:verify_new_ex called without proper synchronization!
[ 12.033576] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 12.041942] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
[ 12.048796] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
[ 12.052700] #0: (sb_writers#7){.+.+.+}, at: [<c017af84>] __sb_start_write+0x8c/0xb0
[ 12.060954] #1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01f1600>] kernfs_fop_write+0x50/0x1b8
[ 12.069085] #2: (s_active#30){++++.+}, at: [<c01f1608>] kernfs_fop_write+0x58/0x1b8
[ 12.077310] #3: (devcgroup_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0317bfc>] devcgroup_access_write+0x20/0x658
[ 12.086575] stack backtrace:
[ 12.091124] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: systemd Not tainted 4.2.0-next-20150831 #1154
[ 12.098609] Hardware name: Generic AM43 (Flattened Device Tree)
[ 12.104807] [<c001770c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0013a58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
[ 12.112924] [<c0013a58>] (show_stack) from [<c034f014>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c)
[ 12.120491] [<c034f014>] (dump_stack) from [<c0317a04>] (verify_new_ex+0xc4/0xdc)
[ 12.128326] [<c0317a04>] (verify_new_ex) from [<c0317f50>] (devcgroup_access_write+0x374/0x658)
[ 12.137426] [<c0317f50>] (devcgroup_access_write) from [<c00d2800>] (cgroup_file_write+0x28/0x1bc)
[ 12.146796] [<c00d2800>] (cgroup_file_write) from [<c01f1670>] (kernfs_fop_write+0xc0/0x1b8)
[ 12.155620] [<c01f1670>] (kernfs_fop_write) from [<c0177c94>] (__vfs_write+0x1c/0xd8)
[ 12.163783] [<c0177c94>] (__vfs_write) from [<c0178594>] (vfs_write+0x90/0x16c)
[ 12.171426] [<c0178594>] (vfs_write) from [<c0178db4>] (SyS_write+0x44/0x9c)
[ 12.178806] [<c0178db4>] (SyS_write) from [<c000f680>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c)
Fix it by making sure rcu_read_lock() is held
around calls to parent_has_perm().
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
---
security/device_cgroup.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/security/device_cgroup.c b/security/device_cgroup.c
index 73455089feef..dd77ed206fa4 100644
--- a/security/device_cgroup.c
+++ b/security/device_cgroup.c
@@ -608,6 +608,7 @@ static int devcgroup_update_access(struct dev_cgroup *devcgroup,
int count, rc = 0;
struct dev_exception_item ex;
struct dev_cgroup *parent = css_to_devcgroup(devcgroup->css.parent);
+ int ret;
if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
return -EPERM;
@@ -734,7 +735,11 @@ static int devcgroup_update_access(struct dev_cgroup *devcgroup,
break;
}
- if (!parent_has_perm(devcgroup, &ex))
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ ret = parent_has_perm(devcgroup, &ex);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ if (!ret)
return -EPERM;
rc = dev_exception_add(devcgroup, &ex);
break;
--
2.4.3
|
