Skip to content

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Mar 29, 2021

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot]

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

jcmvbkbc and others added 3 commits March 8, 2021 20:15
coprocessor_flush is not a part of fast exception handlers, but it uses
parts of fast coprocessor handling code that's why it's in the same
source file. It uses call0 opcode to invoke those parts so there are no
limitations on their relative location, but the rest of the code calls
coprocessor_flush with call8 and that doesn't work when vectors are
placed in a different gigabyte-aligned area than the rest of the kernel.

Move coprocessor_flush from the .exception.text section to the .text so
that it's reachable from the rest of the kernel with call8.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
If a uaccess (e.g. get_user()) triggers a fault and there's a
fault signal pending, the handler will return to the uaccess without
having performed a uaccess fault fixup, and so the CPU will immediately
execute the uaccess instruction again, whereupon it will livelock
bouncing between that instruction and the fault handler.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210121123140.GD48431@C02TD0UTHF1T.local/

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Pull xtensa fixes from Max Filippov:

 - fix build with separate exception vectors when they are placed too
   far from the rest of the kernel

 - fix uaccess-related livelock in do_page_fault.

* tag 'xtensa-20210329' of git://github.com/jcmvbkbc/linux-xtensa:
  xtensa: fix uaccess-related livelock in do_page_fault
  xtensa: move coprocessor_flush to the .text section
@pull pull bot added the ⤵️ pull label Mar 30, 2021
@pull pull bot merged commit 1e43c37 into vchong:master Mar 30, 2021
pull bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2021
For device removal and replace we call btrfs_find_device_by_devspec,
which if we give it a device path and nothing else will call
btrfs_get_dev_args_from_path, which opens the block device and reads the
super block and then looks up our device based on that.

However at this point we're holding the sb write "lock", so reading the
block device pulls in the dependency of ->open_mutex, which produces the
following lockdep splat

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2+ #405 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/11576 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9bbe8cded938 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0

but task is already holding lock:
ffff9bbe88e4fc68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
       __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
       lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
       blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0
       blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
       blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
       do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
       path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
       do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
       do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
       __x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

-> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
       __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
       blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x56/0x3c0
       blkdev_get_by_path+0x98/0xa0
       btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb+0x1b/0xb0
       btrfs_find_device_by_devspec+0x12b/0x1c0
       btrfs_rm_device+0x127/0x610
       btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70
       __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

-> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}:
       lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop]
       loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop]
       process_one_work+0x26b/0x560
       worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
       kthread+0x140/0x160
       ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
       process_one_work+0x245/0x560
       worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
       kthread+0x140/0x160
       ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
       __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
       lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
       flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
       drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
       destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
       __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
       block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
       __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  (wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
                               lock(&disk->open_mutex);
                               lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
  lock((wq_completion)loop0);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

1 lock held by losetup/11576:
 #0: ffff9bbe88e4fc68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 11576 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #405
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
 dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
 check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
 ? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50
 __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
 lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
 ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220
 flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
 ? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100
 drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
 destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
 __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
 ? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0
 block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7f31b02404cb

Instead what we want to do is populate our device lookup args before we
grab any locks, and then pass these args into btrfs_rm_device().  From
there we can find the device and do the appropriate removal.

Suggested-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
pull bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2023
…h cpu=v4

Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9
("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new
32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function
bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset
(plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound
[S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure:
  $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180
  ...
  insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range
  ...
  libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o'
  scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12)
  #405     verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL

Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied
in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose.

The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted
offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded.

  [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230728011143.3710005-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
  [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231110193644.3130906-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev

Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction")
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231201024640.3417057-1-yonghong.song@linux.dev
pull bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper
prologue and epilogue for this case.

With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except
struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch.

The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual
image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES.

Before:

  $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages
  ...
  WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds...

After:

  $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages
  ...
  #15      bad_struct_ops:OK
  ...
  #399     struct_ops_autocreate:OK
  ...
  #400     struct_ops_kptr_return:OK
  ...
  #401     struct_ops_maybe_null:OK
  ...
  #402     struct_ops_module:OK
  ...
  #404     struct_ops_no_cfi:OK
  ...
  #405     struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP
  ...
  #406     struct_ops_refcounted:OK
  Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@loongson.cn>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants