Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1543313 > unrolled thread

ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-12-16 10:40 +0100
    Re: ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-12-18 17:30 +0100
      Re: ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-12-18 17:40 +0100
        Re: ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-12-18 19:40 +0100
          [PATCH v2] ipc/sem.c: fix incorrect sem_lock pairing Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> - 2016-12-20 07:40 +0100

#1543313 — ipc: BUG: sem_unlock unlocks non-locked lock

Hello,

The following program causes BUG: bad unlock balance detected!

https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/d0e5efefe4d7d6daed829f5c3ca26a40/raw/08d0a261fe3c987bed04fbf267e08ba04bd533ea/gistfile1.txt

On commit 5cc60aeedf315a7513f92e98314e86d515b986d1 (Dec 14).

[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
4.9.0+ #89 Not tainted
-------------------------------------
a.out/6330 is trying to release lock (&(&new->lock)->rlock) at:
[<ffffffff8316d150>] spin_unlock include/linux/spinlock.h:347 [inline]
[<ffffffff8316d150>] ipc_unlock_object ipc/util.h:175 [inline]
[<ffffffff8316d150>] sem_unlock ipc/sem.c:404 [inline]
[<ffffffff8316d150>] SYSC_semtimedop+0x22f0/0x4410 ipc/sem.c:2004
but there are no more locks to release!

other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by a.out/6330:
 #0:  (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffff8316c9c2>]
SYSC_semtimedop+0x1b62/0x4410 ipc/sem.c:1968
 #1:  (&(&sma->sem_base[i].lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at:
[<ffffffff8316d1e4>] spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:302 [inline]
 #1:  (&(&sma->sem_base[i].lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at:
[<ffffffff8316d1e4>] sem_lock ipc/sem.c:362 [inline]
 #1:  (&(&sma->sem_base[i].lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at:
[<ffffffff8316d1e4>] SYSC_semtimedop+0x2384/0x4410 ipc/sem.c:1980

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 6330 Comm: a.out Not tainted 4.9.0+ #89
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15 [inline]
 dump_stack+0x2ee/0x3ef lib/dump_stack.c:51
 print_unlock_imbalance_bug+0x12f/0x140 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3391
 __lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3533 [inline]
 lock_release+0xa21/0xf00 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3772
 __raw_spin_unlock include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:152 [inline]
 _raw_spin_unlock+0x1f/0x40 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:183
 spin_unlock include/linux/spinlock.h:347 [inline]
 ipc_unlock_object ipc/util.h:175 [inline]
 sem_unlock ipc/sem.c:404 [inline]
 SYSC_semtimedop+0x22f0/0x4410 ipc/sem.c:2004
 SyS_semtimedop ipc/sem.c:1755 [inline]
 SYSC_semop ipc/sem.c:2015 [inline]
 SyS_semop+0x2b/0x40 ipc/sem.c:2012
 entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc6
RIP: 0033:0x44dc19
RSP: 002b:00007fa18086ec88 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000041
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 000000000044dc19
RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000020002ff0 RDI: 0000000000008001
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 00007fa18086f9c0 R15: 00007fa18086f700

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1544165

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

>[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>4.9.0+ #89 Not tainted

Thanks for the report, I can reproduce the issue as of (which I obviously
should have tested with lockdep):

370b262c896 (ipc/sem: avoid idr tree lookup for interrupted semop)

I need to think more about it this evening, but I believe the issue to be
the potentially bogus locknum in the unlock path, as we are calling sem_lock
without updating the variable. I'll send a patch after more testing. This
fixes it for me:

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index e08b94851922..fba6139e7208 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -1977,7 +1977,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
 		}
 
 		rcu_read_lock();
-		sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
+	        sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
 
 		if (!ipc_valid_object(&sma->sem_perm))
 			goto out_unlock_free;

Thanks,
Davidlohr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1544168

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016, Bueso wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>>[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>>4.9.0+ #89 Not tainted
>
>Thanks for the report, I can reproduce the issue as of (which I obviously
>should have tested with lockdep):
>
>370b262c896 (ipc/sem: avoid idr tree lookup for interrupted semop)
>
>I need to think more about it this evening, but I believe the issue to be
>the potentially bogus locknum in the unlock path, as we are calling sem_lock
>without updating the variable. I'll send a patch after more testing. This
>fixes it for me:
>
>diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
>index e08b94851922..fba6139e7208 100644
>--- a/ipc/sem.c
>+++ b/ipc/sem.c
>@@ -1977,7 +1977,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
>		}
>
>		rcu_read_lock();
>-		sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
>+	        sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

*sigh*, that would be:
	         locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1544186

On 12/18/2016 05:29 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016, Bueso wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>>> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
>>> 4.9.0+ #89 Not tainted
>>
>> Thanks for the report, I can reproduce the issue as of (which I 
>> obviously
>> should have tested with lockdep):
>>
>> 370b262c896 (ipc/sem: avoid idr tree lookup for interrupted semop)
>>
>> I need to think more about it this evening, but I believe the issue 
>> to be
>> the potentially bogus locknum in the unlock path, as we are calling 
>> sem_lock
>> without updating the variable. I'll send a patch after more testing. 
>> This
>> fixes it for me:
>>
>> diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
>> index e08b94851922..fba6139e7208 100644
>> --- a/ipc/sem.c
>> +++ b/ipc/sem.c
>> @@ -1977,7 +1977,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct 
>> sembuf __user *, tsops,
>>         }
>>
>>         rcu_read_lock();
>> -        sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
>> +            sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
>
> *sigh*, that would be:
>              locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

Yes, I can confirm that this fixes the issue.

Reproducing is simple:

- task A: single semop semop(), sleeps
- task B: multi semop semop(), sleeps
- task A woken up by signal/timeout

I'll send a patch.

--

     Manfred

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1544937 — [PATCH v2] ipc/sem.c: fix incorrect sem_lock pairing

Based on the syzcaller test case from dvyukov:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/d0e5efefe4d7d6daed829f5c3ca26a40/raw/08d0a261fe3c987bed04fbf267e08ba04bd533ea/gistfile1.txt

The slow (i.e.: failure to acquire) syscall exit from semtimedop()
incorrectly assumed that the the same lock is acquired as it was
at the initial syscall entry.

This is wrong:
- thread A: single semop semop(), sleeps
- thread B: multi semop semop(), sleeps
- thread A: woken up by signal/timeout

With this sequence, the initial sem_lock() call locks the
per-semaphore spinlock, and it is unlocked with sem_unlock().
The call at the syscall return locks the global spinlock.
Because locknum is not updated, the following sem_unlock() call
unlocks the per-semaphore spinlock, which is actually not locked.

The fix is trivial: Use the return value from sem_lock.

Reported-by: dvyukov@google.com
Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Fixes: 370b262c896e ("ipc/sem: avoid idr tree lookup for interrupted semop")
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net

---

Patch V2:
- subject line updated
- documentation slightly updated

 ipc/sem.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index e08b948..3ec5742 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -1977,7 +1977,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
 		}
 
 		rcu_read_lock();
-		sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
+		locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
 
 		if (!ipc_valid_object(&sma->sem_perm))
 			goto out_unlock_free;
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web