locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
itself has been released.

In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.

Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
dereferences of struct lockdep_map.

Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.

This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
is not going to be used.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009092031.6356-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 	int ret;
 
 	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
-	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
 
 	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
 	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
@@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done, TIMEOUT);
 	}
 	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
-	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
 
 	if (ret) {
 		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
@@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
+	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;