linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 9/9] zram: add dynamic device add/remove functionality

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, 29 Apr 2015 09:16:24 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 9/9] zram: add dynamic device add/remove functionality

Hello,

Minchan, a quick question. just to avoid resends and to make sure that I'm
not missing any better solution.

lockdep is unhappy here:

> -static void zram_remove(struct zram *zram)
> +static int zram_remove(struct zram *zram)
>  {
> -	pr_info("Removed device: %s\n", zram->disk->disk_name);
> +	struct block_device *bdev;
> +
> +	bdev = bdget_disk(zram->disk, 0);
> +	if (!bdev)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +	if (bdev->bd_openers) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Remove sysfs first, so no one will perform a disksize
> -	 * store while we destroy the devices
> +	 * store while we destroy the devices. This also helps during
> +	 * zram_remove() -- device_reset() is the last holder of
> +	 * ->init_lock.
>  	 */
>  	sysfs_remove_group(&disk_to_dev(zram->disk)->kobj,
>  			&zram_disk_attr_group);
>  
> +	/* Make sure all pending I/O is finished */
> +	fsync_bdev(bdev);
>  	zram_reset_device(zram);
> +	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +
> +	pr_info("Removed device: %s\n", zram->disk->disk_name);
> +
>  	idr_remove(&zram_index_idr, zram->disk->first_minor);
>  	blk_cleanup_queue(zram->disk->queue);
>  	del_gendisk(zram->disk);
>  	put_disk(zram->disk);
>  	kfree(zram);
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }

lock ->bd_mutex
	if ->bd_openers {
		unlock ->bd_mutex
		return -EBUSY;
	}

	sysfs_remove_group()
		^^^^^^^^^ lockdep splat
	zram_reset_device()
		lock ->init_lock
		reset device
		unlock ->init_lock
unlock ->bd_mutex
...
kfree zram

why did I do this:

sysfs_remove_group() turns zram_reset_device() into the last possible ->init_lock
owner: there are no sysfs nodes before final zram_reset_device(), so no
concurrent nor later store()/show() sysfs handler can be called. it closes a number
of race conditions, like:

	CPU0			CPU1
	umount
	zram_remove()
	zram_reset_device()	disksize_store()
				mount
	kfree zram

or

	CPU0				CPU1
	umount
	zram_remove()
	zram_reset_device()
					cat /sys/block/zram0/_any_sysfs_node_
	sysfs_remove_group()
	kfree zram			_any_sysfs_node_read()

and so on. so removing sysfs group before zram_reset_device() makes sense.

at the same time we need to prevent `umount-zram_remove vs. mount' race and forbid
zram_remove() on active device. so we check ->bd_openers and perform device reset
under ->bd_mutex.

a quick solution I can think of is to do something like this:

sysfs_remove_group();
lock ->bd_mutex
	if ->bd_openers {
		unlock ->bd_mutex
		create_sysfs_group()
			^^^^^^^^   return attrs back
		return -EBUSY
	}

	zram_reset_device()
		lock ->init_lock
		reset device
		unlock ->init_lock
unlock ->bd_mutex
...
kfree zram

iow, move sysfs_remove_group() out of ->bd_mutex lock, but keep it
before ->bd_openers check & zram_reset_device().

I don't think that we can handle it with only ->init_lock. we need to unlock
it at some point and kfree zram that contains that lock. and we have no idea
are there any lock owners or waiters when we kfree zram. removing sysfs group
and acquiring ->init_lock for write in zram_reset_device() guarantee that
there will no further ->init_lock owners and we can safely kfree after
`unlock ->init_lock`. hence, sysfs_remove_group() must happen before
zram_reset_device().

create_sysfs_group() potentially can fail. which is a bit ugly. but user
will be able to umount device and remove it anyway.

what do you think?

	-ss
--
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/