linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

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:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:40:50 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, jboyer@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:19:27 -0600
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > Sigh.  Was lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() sufficiently
> > self-explanatory to justify leaving it undocumented?
> > 
> > <goes off and reads e096d0c7e2e>
> > 
> > OK, the patch looks correct given the explanation in e096d0c7e2e, but
> > I'd like to understand why it becomes necessary only now.
> > 
> > > NOTE: This patch also require 
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
> > > to remove the lockdep warning
> > 
> > And that patch has been basically ignored.
> 
> Al commented on it here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/518
> 
> He said that while my patch is correct, taking i_mutex inside mmap_sem
> is still wrong.

OK, thanks, yup.  Taking i_mutex in file_operations.mmap() is wrong.

Is hugetlbfs actually deadlockable because of this, or is it the case
that the i_mutex->mmap_sem ordering happens to never happen for this
filesystem?  Although we shouldn't go and create incompatible lock
ranking rules for different filesystems!

So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap().  What's it
actually trying to do in there?  If we switch to
i_size_read()/i_size_write() then AFAICT the problem comes down to
hugetlb_reserve_pages().

hugetlb_reserve_pages() fiddles with i_mapping->private_list and the fs
owns private_list and is free to use a lock other than i_mutex to
protect it.  (In fact i_mapping.private_lock is the usual lock for
private_list).

So from a quick scan here I'm thinking that a decent fix is to remove
the i_mutex locking from hugetlbfs_file_mmap(), switch
hugetlbfs_file_mmap() to i_size_read/write then use a hugetlb-private
lock to protect i_mapping->private_list.  region_chg() will do
GFP_KERNEL allocations under that lock, so some care is needed.

--
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/