From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 18:43:50 +0000
Subject: vsock: Fix a lockdep warning in __vsock_release()
Git-commit: 0d9138ffac24cf8b75366ede3a68c951e6dcc575
Patch-mainline: 5.4-rc2
References: networking-stable-19_10_05
Lockdep is unhappy if two locks from the same class are held.
Fix the below warning for hyperv and virtio sockets (vmci socket code
doesn't have the issue) by using lock_sock_nested() when __vsock_release()
is called recursively:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.3.0+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
server/1795 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff8880c5158990 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
lock(sk_lock-AF_VSOCK);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by server/1795:
#0: ffff8880c5d05ff8 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#10){+.+.}, at: __sock_release+0x2d/0xa0
#1: ffff8880c5158150 (sk_lock-AF_VSOCK){+.+.}, at: __vsock_release+0x2e/0xf0 [vsock]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 5 PID: 1795 Comm: server Not tainted 5.3.0+ #1
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x67/0x90
__lock_acquire.cold.67+0xd2/0x20b
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1c0
lock_sock_nested+0x6d/0x90
hvs_release+0x10/0x120 [hv_sock]
__vsock_release+0x24/0xf0 [vsock]
__vsock_release+0xa0/0xf0 [vsock]
vsock_release+0x12/0x30 [vsock]
__sock_release+0x37/0xa0
sock_close+0x14/0x20
__fput+0xc1/0x250
task_work_run+0x98/0xc0
do_exit+0x344/0xc60
do_group_exit+0x47/0xb0
get_signal+0x15c/0xc50
do_signal+0x30/0x720
exit_to_usermode_loop+0x50/0xa0
do_syscall_64+0x24e/0x270
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
RIP: 0033:0x7f4184e85f31
Tested-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
---
net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c
@@ -664,7 +664,7 @@ struct sock *__vsock_create(struct net *
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vsock_create);
-static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk)
+static void __vsock_release(struct sock *sk, int level)
{
if (sk) {
struct sk_buff *skb;
@@ -674,9 +674,17 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock
vsk = vsock_sk(sk);
pending = NULL; /* Compiler warning. */
+ /* The release call is supposed to use lock_sock_nested()
+ * rather than lock_sock(), if a sock lock should be acquired.
+ */
transport->release(vsk);
- lock_sock(sk);
+ /* When "level" is SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING, use the nested
+ * version to avoid the warning "possible recursive locking
+ * detected". When "level" is 0, lock_sock_nested(sk, level)
+ * is the same as lock_sock(sk).
+ */
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, level);
sock_orphan(sk);
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
@@ -685,7 +693,7 @@ static void __vsock_release(struct sock
/* Clean up any sockets that never were accepted. */
while ((pending = vsock_dequeue_accept(sk)) != NULL) {
- __vsock_release(pending);
+ __vsock_release(pending, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
sock_put(pending);
}
@@ -734,7 +742,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_stream_has_space
static int vsock_release(struct socket *sock)
{
- __vsock_release(sock->sk);
+ __vsock_release(sock->sk, 0);
sock->sk = NULL;
sock->state = SS_FREE;
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
@@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ void virtio_transport_release(struct vso
struct sock *sk = &vsk->sk;
bool remove_sock = true;
- lock_sock(sk);
+ lock_sock_nested(sk, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
if (sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
remove_sock = virtio_transport_close(vsk);