linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures

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, 14 Nov 2011 12:05:06 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, pavel@....cz, lenb@...nel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM/Memory-hotplug: Avoid task freezing failures

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:12:43PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> The lock_system_sleep() function is used in the memory hotplug code at
> several places in order to implement mutual exclusion with hibernation.
> However, this function tries to acquire the 'pm_mutex' lock using
> mutex_lock() and hence blocks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state if it doesn't
> get the lock. This would lead to task freezing failures and hence
> hibernation failure as a consequence, even though the hibernation call path
> successfully acquired the lock.
> 
> This patch fixes this issue by modifying lock_system_sleep() to use
> mutex_lock_interruptible() instead of mutex_lock(), so that it blocks in the
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. This would allow the freezer to freeze the blocked
> task. Also, since the freezer could use signals to freeze tasks, it is quite
> likely that mutex_lock_interruptible() returns -EINTR (and fails to acquire
> the lock). Hence we keep retrying in a loop until we acquire the lock. Also,
> we call try_to_freeze() within the loop, so that we don't cause freezing
> failures due to busy looping.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
...
>  static inline void lock_system_sleep(void)
>  {
> -	mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
> +	/*
> +	 * We should not use mutex_lock() here because, in case we fail to
> +	 * acquire the lock, it would put us to sleep in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> +	 * state, which would lead to task freezing failures. As a
> +	 * consequence, hibernation would fail (even though it had acquired
> +	 * the 'pm_mutex' lock).
> +	 *
> +	 * Note that mutex_lock_interruptible() returns -EINTR if we happen
> +	 * to get a signal when we are waiting to acquire the lock (and this
> +	 * is very likely here because the freezer could use signals to freeze
> +	 * tasks). Hence we have to keep retrying until we get the lock. But
> +	 * we have to use try_to_freeze() in the loop, so that we don't cause
> +	 * freezing failures due to busy looping.
> +	 */
> +	while (mutex_lock_interruptible(&pm_mutex))
> +		try_to_freeze();

Hmmm... is this a problem that we need to worry about?  If not, I'm
not sure this is a good idea.  What if the task calling
lock_system_sleep() is a userland one and has actual outstanding
signal?  It would busy spin until it acquire pm_mutex.  Maybe that's
okay too given how pm_mutex is used but it's still nasty.  If this
isn't a real problem, maybe leave this alone for now?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/