Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1603152 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-17 11:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-21 19:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 5 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2017-03-17 11:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-03-20 19:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2017-03-21 07:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2017-03-21 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-03-21 19:30 +0100
| From | Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-17 11:00 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH] fs/pstore: Perform erase from a worker |
| Message-ID | <tlWPU-4pa-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
[ 605.374955] ======================================================
[ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
[ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.412300]
[ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
[ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
0
[ 605.427397]
[ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 605.427397]
[ 605.435770]
[ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 605.443396]
[ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
[ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
[ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
[ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
[ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
[ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
[ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
[ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
[ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
[ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
[ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
[ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
[ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
[ 605.501496]
[ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
[ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
[ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
[ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
[ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
[ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
[ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
[ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
[ 605.547067]
[ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 605.547067]
[ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 605.555221]
[ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
[ 605.565883] ---- ----
[ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
[ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
[ 605.581803] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
[ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
[ 605.593156]
[ 605.593156] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 605.593156]
[ 605.599214] 3 locks held by rm/7298:
[ 605.602896] #0: (sb_writers#11){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8122e85f>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
[ 605.611490] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8121a7dc>] do_unlinkat+0
x11c/0x2a0
[ 605.621417] #2: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c
/0x190
[ 605.630995]
[ 605.630995] stack backtrace:
[ 605.635450] CPU: 7 PID: 7298 Comm: rm Not tainted 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1
[ 605.642999] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z170X-UD5/Z170X-UD5-CF, BIOS F21 01/06/2
017
[ 605.652305] Call Trace:
[ 605.654814] dump_stack+0x67/0x92
[ 605.658184] print_circular_bug+0x1e0/0x2e0
[ 605.662465] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
[ 605.666634] ? retint_kernel+0x2d/0x2d
[ 605.670456] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
[ 605.674112] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.677970] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.681818] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
[ 605.685456] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.689791] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.694124] ? vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x190
[ 605.698310] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
[ 605.702859] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
[ 605.707021] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
[ 605.711024] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
[ 605.715194] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
[ 605.719275] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
[ 605.724543] RIP: 0033:0x7f8b08073ed7
[ 605.728676] RSP: 002b:00007ffe70eff628 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000107
[ 605.736929] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: ffffffff8147ea93 RCX: 00007f8b08073ed7
[ 605.744711] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000001450000 RDI: 00000000ffffff9c
[ 605.752512] RBP: ffffc9000338ff88 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000000
[ 605.760276] R10: 000000000000015e R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000000000
[ 605.768040] R13: 00007ffe70eff750 R14: 000000000144ff70 R15: 0000000001451230
[ 605.775800] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
Reported-by: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>
Fixes: e9e360b08a44 ("pstore: Protect unlink with read_mutex")
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100234
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.10+
---
fs/pstore/inode.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
fs/pstore/platform.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
index 57c0646479f5..dee5d34d9a64 100644
--- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
+++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
@@ -186,6 +186,26 @@ static const struct file_operations pstore_file_operations = {
.release = seq_release,
};
+struct pstore_unlink_work {
+ struct work_struct work;
+ struct dentry *dentry;
+};
+
+static void pstore_unlink_work(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+ struct pstore_unlink_work *arg = container_of(work, typeof(*arg), work);
+ struct dentry *dentry = arg->dentry;
+ struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
+
+ mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
+ p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
+ d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
+ mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
+
+ dput(dentry);
+ kfree(arg);
+}
+
/*
* When a file is unlinked from our file system we call the
* platform driver to erase the record from persistent store.
@@ -193,20 +213,23 @@ static const struct file_operations pstore_file_operations = {
static int pstore_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
{
struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
+ struct pstore_unlink_work *work;
int err;
err = pstore_check_syslog_permissions(p);
if (err)
return err;
- if (p->psi->erase) {
- mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
- p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
- d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
- mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
- } else {
+ if (!p->psi->erase)
return -EPERM;
- }
+
+ work = kmalloc(sizeof(*work), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!work)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ work->dentry = dget(dentry);
+ INIT_WORK(&work->work, pstore_unlink_work);
+ schedule_work(&work->work);
return simple_unlink(dir, dentry);
}
diff --git a/fs/pstore/platform.c b/fs/pstore/platform.c
index efab7b64925b..6ffca5ab4782 100644
--- a/fs/pstore/platform.c
+++ b/fs/pstore/platform.c
@@ -731,6 +731,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pstore_register);
void pstore_unregister(struct pstore_info *psi)
{
+ flush_scheduled_work();
+
if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_PMSG)
pstore_unregister_pmsg();
if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_FTRACE)
--
2.11.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-20 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tna4q-52-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1603152 |
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
> inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
>
> [ 605.374955] ======================================================
> [ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.412300]
> [ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
> 0
> [ 605.427397]
> [ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 605.427397]
> [ 605.435770]
> [ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 605.443396]
> [ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
> [ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
> [ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
> [ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
> [ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
> [ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
> [ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
> [ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
> [ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
> [ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
> [ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
> [ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> [ 605.501496]
> [ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> [ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> [ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> [ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> [ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> [ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> [ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> [ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
If I'm reading this right it's a race between mount and unlink...
that's quite a corner case. :)
> [ 605.547067]
> [ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 605.547067]
> [ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 605.555221]
> [ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 605.565883] ---- ----
> [ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> [ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
> [ 605.581803] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> [ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
I haven't had time to dig much yet, but I wonder if the locking order
on unlink could just be reversed, and the deadlock would go away?
> [ 605.593156]
> [ 605.593156] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 605.593156]
> [ 605.599214] 3 locks held by rm/7298:
> [ 605.602896] #0: (sb_writers#11){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8122e85f>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
> [ 605.611490] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8121a7dc>] do_unlinkat+0
> x11c/0x2a0
> [ 605.621417] #2: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c
> /0x190
> [ 605.630995]
> [ 605.630995] stack backtrace:
> [ 605.635450] CPU: 7 PID: 7298 Comm: rm Not tainted 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1
> [ 605.642999] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z170X-UD5/Z170X-UD5-CF, BIOS F21 01/06/2
> 017
> [ 605.652305] Call Trace:
> [ 605.654814] dump_stack+0x67/0x92
> [ 605.658184] print_circular_bug+0x1e0/0x2e0
> [ 605.662465] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> [ 605.666634] ? retint_kernel+0x2d/0x2d
> [ 605.670456] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> [ 605.674112] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.677970] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.681818] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> [ 605.685456] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.689791] ? pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.694124] ? vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x190
> [ 605.698310] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> [ 605.702859] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> [ 605.707021] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> [ 605.711024] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> [ 605.715194] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> [ 605.719275] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> [ 605.724543] RIP: 0033:0x7f8b08073ed7
> [ 605.728676] RSP: 002b:00007ffe70eff628 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000107
> [ 605.736929] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: ffffffff8147ea93 RCX: 00007f8b08073ed7
> [ 605.744711] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000001450000 RDI: 00000000ffffff9c
> [ 605.752512] RBP: ffffc9000338ff88 R08: 0000000000000003 R09: 0000000000000000
> [ 605.760276] R10: 000000000000015e R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000000000
> [ 605.768040] R13: 00007ffe70eff750 R14: 000000000144ff70 R15: 0000000001451230
> [ 605.775800] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
>
> Reported-by: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>
> Fixes: e9e360b08a44 ("pstore: Protect unlink with read_mutex")
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100234
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>
> Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.10+
> ---
> fs/pstore/inode.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> fs/pstore/platform.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> index 57c0646479f5..dee5d34d9a64 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,26 @@ static const struct file_operations pstore_file_operations = {
> .release = seq_release,
> };
>
> +struct pstore_unlink_work {
> + struct work_struct work;
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> +};
> +
> +static void pstore_unlink_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct pstore_unlink_work *arg = container_of(work, typeof(*arg), work);
> + struct dentry *dentry = arg->dentry;
> + struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> + p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
> + d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
> + mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> +
> + dput(dentry);
> + kfree(arg);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * When a file is unlinked from our file system we call the
> * platform driver to erase the record from persistent store.
> @@ -193,20 +213,23 @@ static const struct file_operations pstore_file_operations = {
> static int pstore_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> struct pstore_private *p = d_inode(dentry)->i_private;
> + struct pstore_unlink_work *work;
> int err;
>
> err = pstore_check_syslog_permissions(p);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> - if (p->psi->erase) {
> - mutex_lock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> - p->psi->erase(p->type, p->id, p->count,
> - d_inode(dentry)->i_ctime, p->psi);
> - mutex_unlock(&p->psi->read_mutex);
> - } else {
> + if (!p->psi->erase)
> return -EPERM;
> - }
> +
> + work = kmalloc(sizeof(*work), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!work)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + work->dentry = dget(dentry);
> + INIT_WORK(&work->work, pstore_unlink_work);
> + schedule_work(&work->work);
>
> return simple_unlink(dir, dentry);
> }
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/platform.c b/fs/pstore/platform.c
> index efab7b64925b..6ffca5ab4782 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/platform.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/platform.c
> @@ -731,6 +731,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pstore_register);
>
> void pstore_unregister(struct pstore_info *psi)
> {
> + flush_scheduled_work();
> +
> if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_PMSG)
> pstore_unregister_pmsg();
> if (psi->flags & PSTORE_FLAGS_FTRACE)
> --
> 2.11.0
>
If there isn't a shorter solution, then yeah, we can add a worker, but
I'd rather avoid the complexity...
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 07:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnl9w-7Kc-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1604953 |
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:49:16AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
> > inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
> >
> > [ 605.374955] ======================================================
> > [ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> > [ 605.412300]
> > [ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
> > 0
> > [ 605.427397]
> > [ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [ 605.427397]
> > [ 605.435770]
> > [ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 605.443396]
> > [ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
> > [ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> > [ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
> > [ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
> > [ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
> > [ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
> > [ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
> > [ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
> > [ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
> > [ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
> > [ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
> > [ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
> > [ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> > [ 605.501496]
> > [ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> > [ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> > [ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> > [ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> > [ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> > [ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> > [ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> > [ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> > [ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> > [ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>
> If I'm reading this right it's a race between mount and unlink...
> that's quite a corner case. :)
>
> > [ 605.547067]
> > [ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 605.547067]
> > [ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 605.555221]
> > [ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 605.565883] ---- ----
> > [ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> > [ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
> > [ 605.581803] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> > [ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
>
> I haven't had time to dig much yet, but I wonder if the locking order
> on unlink could just be reversed, and the deadlock would go away?
IIUC, the unlink path locks a file in the root directory, while the
mount path locks the root directory. Maybe we can use a subclass?
(not tested)
Thanks,
Namhyung
diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
index 06504b69575b..6eea6bcf90c8 100644
--- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
+++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ int pstore_mkfile(struct pstore_record *record)
break;
}
- inode_lock(d_inode(root));
+ inode_lock_nested(d_inode(root), I_MUTEX_PARENT);
dentry = d_alloc_name(root, name);
if (!dentry)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnvBU-6kG-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1605327 |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 02:58:48PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:49:16AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
> > > inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
> > >
> > > [ 605.374955] ======================================================
> > > [ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > [ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
> > > [ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
> > > [ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> > > [ 605.412300]
> > > [ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
> > > 0
> > > [ 605.427397]
> > > [ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > > [ 605.427397]
> > > [ 605.435770]
> > > [ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > > [ 605.443396]
> > > [ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
> > > [ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> > > [ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
> > > [ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
> > > [ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
> > > [ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
> > > [ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
> > > [ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
> > > [ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
> > > [ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
> > > [ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
> > > [ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
> > > [ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> > > [ 605.501496]
> > > [ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> > > [ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
> > > [ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
> > > [ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
> > > [ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> > > [ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
> > > [ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
> > > [ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
> > > [ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
> > > [ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> >
> > If I'm reading this right it's a race between mount and unlink...
> > that's quite a corner case. :)
> >
> > > [ 605.547067]
> > > [ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
> > > [ 605.547067]
> > > [ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > [ 605.555221]
> > > [ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
> > > [ 605.565883] ---- ----
> > > [ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> > > [ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
> > > [ 605.581803] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
> > > [ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
> >
> > I haven't had time to dig much yet, but I wonder if the locking order
> > on unlink could just be reversed, and the deadlock would go away?
>
> IIUC, the unlink path locks a file in the root directory, while the
> mount path locks the root directory. Maybe we can use a subclass?
> (not tested)
More puzzling, or just my confusion, reports from our CI farm say that
this patch breaks removing objects from pstote. :|
Will look forward to better suggestions on how to avoid lockdep.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-21 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnwHE-73c-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1605327 |
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:49:16AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In order to prevent a cyclic recursion between psi->read_mutex and the
>> > inode_lock, we need to move the pse->erase to a worker.
>> >
>> > [ 605.374955] ======================================================
>> > [ 605.381281] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> > [ 605.387679] 4.11.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_2352+ #1 Not tainted
>> > [ 605.392826] -------------------------------------------------------
>> > [ 605.399196] rm/7298 is trying to acquire lock:
>> > [ 605.403720] (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813e183f>] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
>> > [ 605.412300]
>> > [ 605.412300] but task is already holding lock:
>> > [ 605.418237] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff812157ec>] vfs_unlink+0x4c/0x19
>> > 0
>> > [ 605.427397]
>> > [ 605.427397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>> > [ 605.427397]
>> > [ 605.435770]
>> > [ 605.435770] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>> > [ 605.443396]
>> > [ 605.443396] -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){++++++}:
>> > [ 605.450347] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
>> > [ 605.454551] down_write+0x3f/0x70
>> > [ 605.458484] pstore_mkfile+0x1f4/0x460
>> > [ 605.462835] pstore_get_records+0x17a/0x320
>> > [ 605.467664] pstore_fill_super+0xa4/0xc0
>> > [ 605.472205] mount_single+0x89/0xb0
>> > [ 605.476314] pstore_mount+0x13/0x20
>> > [ 605.480411] mount_fs+0xf/0x90
>> > [ 605.484122] vfs_kern_mount+0x66/0x170
>> > [ 605.488464] do_mount+0x190/0xd50
>> > [ 605.492397] SyS_mount+0x90/0xd0
>> > [ 605.496212] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>> > [ 605.501496]
>> > [ 605.501496] -> #0 (&psinfo->read_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>> > [ 605.507747] __lock_acquire+0x1ac0/0x1bb0
>> > [ 605.512401] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x220
>> > [ 605.516594] __mutex_lock+0x6e/0x990
>> > [ 605.520755] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
>> > [ 605.525279] pstore_unlink+0x3f/0xa0
>> > [ 605.529465] vfs_unlink+0xb5/0x190
>> > [ 605.533477] do_unlinkat+0x24c/0x2a0
>> > [ 605.537672] SyS_unlinkat+0x16/0x30
>> > [ 605.541781] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>>
>> If I'm reading this right it's a race between mount and unlink...
>> that's quite a corner case. :)
>>
>> > [ 605.547067]
>> > [ 605.547067] other info that might help us debug this:
>> > [ 605.547067]
>> > [ 605.555221] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> > [ 605.555221]
>> > [ 605.561280] CPU0 CPU1
>> > [ 605.565883] ---- ----
>> > [ 605.570502] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
>> > [ 605.575217] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
>> > [ 605.581803] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14);
>> > [ 605.589159] lock(&psinfo->read_mutex);
>>
>> I haven't had time to dig much yet, but I wonder if the locking order
>> on unlink could just be reversed, and the deadlock would go away?
>
> IIUC, the unlink path locks a file in the root directory, while the
> mount path locks the root directory. Maybe we can use a subclass?
> (not tested)
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> index 06504b69575b..6eea6bcf90c8 100644
> --- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
> @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ int pstore_mkfile(struct pstore_record *record)
> break;
> }
>
> - inode_lock(d_inode(root));
> + inode_lock_nested(d_inode(root), I_MUTEX_PARENT);
>
> dentry = d_alloc_name(root, name);
> if (!dentry)
No luck, unfortunately...
In looking at other examples, I don't think the inode_lock is needed
at all? I see other uses of d_alloc_name() and d_add() without an
inode lock (proc, libfs, etc), and the locking documentation doesn't
seem to imply it either? This solves the lockdep, though it's unclear
to me if it is somehow unsafe (apologies for whitespace damage...):
diff --git a/fs/pstore/inode.c b/fs/pstore/inode.c
index 06504b69575b..3d83b13d2338 100644
--- a/fs/pstore/inode.c
+++ b/fs/pstore/inode.c
@@ -394,11 +394,9 @@ int pstore_mkfile(struct pstore_record *record)
break;
}
- inode_lock(d_inode(root));
-
dentry = d_alloc_name(root, name);
if (!dentry)
- goto fail_lockedalloc;
+ goto fail_private;
inode->i_size = private->total_size = size;
@@ -413,16 +411,12 @@ int pstore_mkfile(struct pstore_record *record)
list_add(&private->list, &allpstore);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&allpstore_lock, flags);
- inode_unlock(d_inode(root));
-
return 0;
-fail_lockedalloc:
- inode_unlock(d_inode(root));
+fail_private:
free_pstore_private(private);
fail_alloc:
iput(inode);
-
fail:
return rc;
}
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web