perf: Annotate inherited event ctx->mutex recursion

While fuzzing Sasha tripped over another ctx->mutex recursion lockdep
splat. Annotate this.

Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 81aa3a4..1a3bf48 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -913,10 +913,30 @@ static void put_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx)
  * Those places that change perf_event::ctx will hold both
  * perf_event_ctx::mutex of the 'old' and 'new' ctx value.
  *
- * Lock ordering is by mutex address. There is one other site where
- * perf_event_context::mutex nests and that is put_event(). But remember that
- * that is a parent<->child context relation, and migration does not affect
- * children, therefore these two orderings should not interact.
+ * Lock ordering is by mutex address. There are two other sites where
+ * perf_event_context::mutex nests and those are:
+ *
+ *  - perf_event_exit_task_context()   [ child , 0 ]
+ *      __perf_event_exit_task()
+ *        sync_child_event()
+ *          put_event()                        [ parent, 1 ]
+ *
+ *  - perf_event_init_context()                [ parent, 0 ]
+ *      inherit_task_group()
+ *        inherit_group()
+ *          inherit_event()
+ *            perf_event_alloc()
+ *              perf_init_event()
+ *                perf_try_init_event()        [ child , 1 ]
+ *
+ * While it appears there is an obvious deadlock here -- the parent and child
+ * nesting levels are inverted between the two. This is in fact safe because
+ * life-time rules separate them. That is an exiting task cannot fork, and a
+ * spawning task cannot (yet) exit.
+ *
+ * But remember that that these are parent<->child context relations, and
+ * migration does not affect children, therefore these two orderings should not
+ * interact.
  *
  * The change in perf_event::ctx does not affect children (as claimed above)
  * because the sys_perf_event_open() case will install a new event and break
@@ -3657,9 +3677,6 @@ static void perf_remove_from_owner(struct perf_event *event)
        }
 }
 
-/*
- * Called when the last reference to the file is gone.
- */
 static void put_event(struct perf_event *event)
 {
        struct perf_event_context *ctx;
@@ -3697,6 +3714,9 @@ int perf_event_release_kernel(struct perf_event *event)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_release_kernel);
 
+/*
+ * Called when the last reference to the file is gone.
+ */
 static int perf_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
        put_event(file->private_data);
@@ -7364,7 +7384,12 @@ static int perf_try_init_event(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event *event)
                return -ENODEV;
 
        if (event->group_leader != event) {
-               ctx = perf_event_ctx_lock(event->group_leader);
+               /*
+                * This ctx->mutex can nest when we're called through
+                * inheritance. See the perf_event_ctx_lock_nested() comment.
+                */
+               ctx = perf_event_ctx_lock_nested(event->group_leader,
+                                                SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
                BUG_ON(!ctx);
        }