linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/15] writeback: update dirtied_when for synced inode to prevent livelock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2011 07:51:28 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] writeback: update dirtied_when for synced inode
 to prevent livelock

On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:02:45AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 05:32:38 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > Explicitly update .dirtied_when on synced inodes, so that they are no
> > longer considered for writeback in the next round.
> 
> It sounds like this somewhat answers my questions for [1/15].
> 
> But I'm not seeing a description of exactly what caused the livelock.

The exact livelock condition is, during sync(1):

(1) no new inodes are dirtied
(2) an inode being actively dirtied

On (2), the inode will be tagged and synced with .nr_to_write=LONG_MAX.
When finished, it will be redirty_tail()ed because it's still dirty
and (.nr_to_write > 0). redirty_tail() won't update its ->dirtied_when
on condition (1). The sync work will then revisit it on the next
queue_io() and find it eligible again because its old ->dirtied_when
predates the sync work start time.

I'll add the above to the changelog.

> > We'll do more aggressive "keep writeback as long as we wrote something"
> > logic in wb_writeback(). The "use LONG_MAX .nr_to_write" trick in commit
> > b9543dac5bbc ("writeback: avoid livelocking WB_SYNC_ALL writeback") will
> > no longer be enough to stop sync livelock.
> > 
> > It can prevent both of the following livelock schemes:
> > 
> > - while true; do echo data >> f; done
> > - while true; do touch f;        done
> 
> You're kidding.  This livelocks sync(1)?  When did we break this?

There are no reported real cases for "touch f" style livelock.  It's
merely a possibility in theory and the more concurrent meta data
dirties, the more likelihood it will happen.

> Why is this?  Because the inode keeps on getting rotated to head-of-list?

Yes, when the inode is always redirty_tail()ed without updating its
->dirtied_when.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/