linux-ext4 - [Bug 13232] ext3/4 with synchronous writes gets wedged by Postfix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 16:52:57 GMT
From:	bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 13232] ext3/4 with synchronous writes gets wedged by Postfix

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13232





--- Comment #6 from Anonymous Emailer <anonymous@...nel-bugs.osdl.org>  2009-05-13 16:52:56 ---
Reply-To: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:48:02PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Here, we have started a transaction in ext3_create() and then wait in
> > find_inode_fast() for I_FREEING to be cleared (obviously we have
> > reallocated the inode and squeezed the allocation before journal_stop()
> > from the delete was called).
> >   Nasty deadlock and I don't see how to fix it now - have to go home for
> > today... Tomorrow I'll have a look what we can do about it.
>   OK, the deadlock has been introduced by ext3 variant of
> 261bca86ed4f7f391d1938167624e78da61dcc6b (adding Al to CC). The deadlock
> is really tough to avoid - we have to first allocate inode on disk so
> that we know the inode number. For this we need transaction open but we
> cannot afford waiting for old inode with same INO to be freed when we have
> transaction open because of the above deadlock. So we'd have to wait for
> inode release only after everything is done and we closed the transaction. But
> that would mean reordering a lot of code in ext3/namei.c so that all the
> dcache handling is done after all the IO is done.
>   Hmm, maybe we could change the delete side of the deadlock but that's
> going to be tricky as well :(.
>   Al, any idea if we could somehow get away without waiting on
> I_FREEING?

At which point do we actually run into deadlock on delete side?  We could,
in principle, skip everything like that in insert_inode_locked(), but
I would rather avoid the "two inodes in icache at the same time, with the
same inumber" situations completely.  We might get away with that, since
everything else *will* wait, so we can afford a bunch of inodes past the
point in foo_delete_inode() that has cleared it in bitmap + new locked
one, but if it's at all possible to avoid, I'd rather avoid it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html