linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull NFS client bugfixes....

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:	Fri, 8 Jan 2010 01:43:29 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull NFS client bugfixes....

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:14:42PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 00:51 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: 
> > > I'd like to see this fixed, but I do not want to jump onto a solution
> > > that changes the behaviour of mmap() w.r.t. revalidation. The current
> > > behaviour dates back at least to 2.3.x if not before.
> > 
> > So do you have a plan to fix it?
> 
> Yes. I want to pursue Peter Zijlstra's patches, which split up the mmap
> function into a set of parts which require the mmap_sem, and other parts
> which don't, and that adds a filesystem callback that allows for
> revalidation to occur outside the mmap_sem.

Is that really a 2.6.33 solution?

It sounds intrusive.

> 
> > I don't think it'll be possible to do drastic changes in the
> > VFS for 2.6.33, and it seems preserving the current semantics
> > would need that.
> > 
> > > That's why I'm working slowly on this.
> > 
> > Delaying a fix to after 2.6.33 is not an option imho.
> > 
> > It hits everyone with LOCKDEP enabled who uses mmap over NFS.
> > That's new in 2.6.33, previously LOCKDEP didn't diagnose this.
> > 
> > I'll keep using my patch, but I suppose once we're going more
> > towards a release you'll get more reports of this.
> 
> Why should this particular issue require us to rush into a solution?

Because every lockdep user NFS+mmap gets spammed now.

That's like having an oops in the startup sequence. The system
might still boot, but users are not happy.

> This has been there for literally _years_, and I've never heard of a
> single incident in which a deadlock actually occurred. The only reason
> why we've noticed it at all is because lockdep has started to whine.

I bet there were deadlocks somewhere, probably just didn't get reported.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/