From: Song Liu song@kernel.org
[ Upstream commit 9d2ce78ddcee159eb6a97449e9c68b6d60b9cec4 ]
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.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220927004146.1215303-1-song@kernel.org
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 Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) rostedt@goodmis.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c index 2edda4962367..83362a155791 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c @@ -5439,6 +5439,8 @@ static struct ftrace_ops stub_ops = { * it is safe to modify the ftrace record, where it should be * currently calling @old_addr directly, to call @new_addr. * + * This is called with direct_mutex locked. + * * Safety checks should be made to make sure that the code at * @rec->ip is currently calling @old_addr. And this must * also update entry->direct to @new_addr. @@ -5451,6 +5453,8 @@ int __weak ftrace_modify_direct_caller(struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, unsigned long ip = rec->ip; int ret;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&direct_mutex); + /* * The ftrace_lock was used to determine if the record * had more than one registered user to it. If it did, @@ -5473,7 +5477,7 @@ int __weak ftrace_modify_direct_caller(struct ftrace_func_entry *entry, if (ret) goto out_lock;
- ret = register_ftrace_function(&stub_ops); + ret = register_ftrace_function_nolock(&stub_ops); if (ret) { ftrace_set_filter_ip(&stub_ops, ip, 1, 0); goto out_lock;