linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: revamp subsys array

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, 09 Dec 2009 14:07:53 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: revamp subsys array

Ben Blum wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 03:38:43PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> @@ -1291,6 +1324,7 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>>>  	struct cgroupfs_root *new_root;
>>>  
>>>  	/* First find the desired set of subsystems */
>>> +	down_read(&subsys_mutex);
>> Hmm.. this can lead to deadlock. sget() returns success with sb->s_umount
>> held, so here we have:
>>
>> 	down_read(&subsys_mutex);
>>
>> 	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>>
>> On the other hand, sb->s_umount is held before calling kill_sb(),
>> so when umounting we have:
>>
>> 	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>>
>> 	down_read(&subsys_mutex);
> 
> Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you can't have deadlock on an rwsem when
> it's being taken for reading in both cases? You would have to have at
> least one of the cases being down_write.
> 

lockdep will warn on this..

And it can really lead to deadlock, though not so obivously:

  thread 1       thread 2        thread 3
-------------------------------------------
| read(A)        write(B)
|
|                                write(A)
|
|                read(A)
|
| write(B)
|

t3 is waiting for t1 to release the lock, then t2 tries to
acquire A lock to read, but it has to wait because of t3,
and t1 has to wait t2.

Note: a read lock has to wait if a write lock is already
waiting for the lock.

> In fairness to readability, perhaps subsys_mutex should instead be
> subsys_rwsem? It seemed to me to be that calling it "mutex" was
> conventional anyway.
> 


--
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/