linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/3] fix illogical behavior in balance_dirty

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:	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 01:32:26 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	dgc@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] fix illogical behavior in balance_dirty_pages()

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:20:11 +0200 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:

> > > > > It also makes a deadlock possible when one filesystem is writing data
> > > > > through another, and the balance_dirty_pages() for the lower
> > > > > filesystem is stalling the writeback for the upper filesystem's
> > > > > data (*).
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't understand this one.  I got lost when belatedly told that
> > > > i_mutex had something to do with it.
> > > 
> > > This deadlock only happens, if there's some bottleneck for writing
> > > data to the lower filesystem.   This bottleneck could be 
> > > 
> > >   - i_mutex, preventing parallel writes to the same inode
> > >   - limited number of filesystem threads
> > >   - limited request queue length in the upper filesystem
> > > 
> > > Imagine it this way: balance_dirty_pages() for the lower filesystem is
> > > stalling a write() because dirty pages in the upper filesystem are
> > > over the limit.  Because there's a bottleneck for writing to the lower
> > > filesystem, this is stalling _other_ writes from completing.  So
> > > there's no progress in writing back pages from the upper filesystem.
> > 
> > You mean that someone is stuck in balance_dirty_pages() against the lower
> > fs while holding locks which prevent writes into the upper fs from
> > succeeding?
> > 
> > Draw us a picture ;)
> 
> Well, not a picture, but a sort of indented call trace:
> 
>   [some process, which has a fuse file writably mmaped]
>   write fault on upper filesystem
>     balance_dirty_pages
>       loop...
>         submit write requests

This, I assume, is the upper fs

>   ---------------------------------
>   [fuse loopback fs thread 1]
>   read request from /dev/fuse
>   sys_write
>     mutex_lock(i_mutex)
>     ...
>        copy data to page cache
>        balance_dirty_pages
>           loop ...
>                 submit write requests
>                 write requests completed ...
>                 dirty still over limit ...
>            ... loop forever
> 
>   [fuse loopback fs thread 2]
>   read request from /dev/fuse
>   sys_write
>     mute_lock(i_mutex) blocks

And these, I assume, are handling what you term the lower fs.

> 
> The lower filesystem (e.g. ext3) has completed the single write
> request that was sent to it, and then it's just looping in
> balance_dirty_pages.  The upper (fuse) filesystem has all the dirty
> data (over the threshold), either still dirty or waiting in the
> request queue as writeback.
> 
> Does this help?

yup.

Interesting problem.  I don't suppose that it'd be appreiated if I were to
commend the use of O_DIRECT for handling the lower fs ;)

Let me think about that a bit, after I've made the latest shitpile people
have inflicted upon me begin to look like it has a chance of compiling.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/