| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:23:59 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfs: avoid swap-over-NFS deadlock
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 01:25:47PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 07/27/2015 12:52 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:46:16PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >> On 07/22/2015 02:23 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} ->
> >>>> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in
> >>>> nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669
> >>>> ("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio").
> >>>> This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes
> >>>> lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I
> >>>> assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought?
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
> >>>
> >>> NFS is not the only O_DIRECT implementation to set the inode->i_mutex.
> >>> Why can't this be fixed in the generic swap code instead of adding
> >>> yet-another-exception-for-IS_SWAPFILE?
> >>
> >> I meant to cc Mel. Just added him.
> >>
> >
> > Can the full lockdep warning be included as it'll be easier to see then if
> > the generic swap code can somehow special case this? Currently, generic
> > swapping does not not need to care about how the filesystem locked.
> > For most filesystems, it's writing directly to the blocks on disk and
> > bypassing the FS. In the NFS case it'd be surprising to find that there
> > also are dirty pages in page cache that belong to the swap file as it's
> > going to cause corruption. If there is any special casing it would to only
> > attempt the invalidation in the !swap case and warn if mapping->nrpages. It
> > still would look a bit weird but safer than just not acquiring the mutex
> > and then potentially attempting an invalidation.
> >
>
> [ 6819.501009] =================================
> [ 6819.501009] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [ 6819.501009] 4.2.0-rc1-shmacct-babka-v2-next-20150709+ #255 Not tainted
> [ 6819.501009] ---------------------------------
Thanks. Sorry for the long delay but I finally got back to the bug this
week. NFS can be modified to special case the swapfile but I was not happy
with the result for multiple reasons. It took me a while to see a way for
the core VM to deal with it. What do you think of the following
approach? More importantly, does it work for you?
---8<---
nfs: Use swap_lock to prevent parallel swapon activations
Jerome Marchand reported a lockdep warning as follows
[ 6819.501009] =================================
[ 6819.501009] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[ 6819.501009] 4.2.0-rc1-shmacct-babka-v2-next-20150709+ #255 Not tainted
[ 6819.501009] ---------------------------------
[ 6819.501009] inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
[ 6819.501009] kswapd0/38 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
[ 6819.501009] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#17){+.+.?.}, at: [<ffffffffa03772a5>] nfs_file_direct_write+0x85/0x3f0 [nfs]
[ 6819.501009] {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81107f51>] mark_held_locks+0x71/0x90
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff8110b775>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x75/0xe0
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81245529>] kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0x39/0x440
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81225b8f>] __get_vm_area_node+0x7f/0x160
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81226eb2>] __vmalloc_node_range+0x72/0x2c0
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81227424>] vzalloc+0x54/0x60
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff8122c7c8>] SyS_swapon+0x628/0xfc0
[ 6819.501009] [<ffffffff81867772>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76
It's due to NFS acquiring i_mutex since a9ab5e840669 ("nfs: page
cache invalidation for dio") to invalidate page cache before direct I/O.
Filesystems may safely acquire i_mutex during direct writes but NFS is unique
in its treatment of swap files. Ordinarily swap files are supported by the
core VM looking up the physical block for a given offset in advance. There
is no physical block for NFS and the direct write paths are used after
calling mapping->swap_activate.
The lockdep warning is triggered by swapon(), which is not in reclaim
context, acquiring the i_mutex to ensure a swapfile is not activated twice.
swapon does not need the i_mutex for this purpose. There is a requirement
that fallocate not be used on swapfiles but this is protected by the inode
flag S_SWAPFILE and nothing to do with i_mutex. In fact, the current
protection does nothing for block devices. This patch expands the role
of swap_lock to protect against parallel activations of block devices and
swapfiles and removes the use of i_mutex. This both improves the protection
for swapon and avoids the lockdep warning.
Reported-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
---
mm/swapfile.c | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
index 41e4581af7c5..d58ed6833fa3 100644
--- a/mm/swapfile.c
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -1928,9 +1928,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, specialfile)
set_blocksize(bdev, old_block_size);
blkdev_put(bdev, FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_EXCL);
} else {
- mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ spin_lock(&swap_lock);
inode->i_flags &= ~S_SWAPFILE;
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
}
filp_close(swap_file, NULL);
@@ -2156,7 +2156,6 @@ static int claim_swapfile(struct swap_info_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
p->flags |= SWP_BLKDEV;
} else if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
p->bdev = inode->i_sb->s_bdev;
- mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
if (IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
return -EBUSY;
} else
@@ -2386,6 +2385,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __user *, specialfile, int, swap_flags)
goto bad_swap;
}
+ /* prevent parallel swapons */
+ spin_lock(&swap_lock);
p->swap_file = swap_file;
mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;
@@ -2396,13 +2397,14 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __user *, specialfile, int, swap_flags)
continue;
if (mapping == q->swap_file->f_mapping) {
error = -EBUSY;
+ spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
goto bad_swap;
}
}
inode = mapping->host;
- /* If S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) will do mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); */
error = claim_swapfile(p, inode);
+ spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
if (unlikely(error))
goto bad_swap;
@@ -2543,10 +2545,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __user *, specialfile, int, swap_flags)
vfree(swap_map);
vfree(cluster_info);
if (swap_file) {
- if (inode && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ if (inode && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
inode = NULL;
- }
filp_close(swap_file, NULL);
}
out:
@@ -2556,8 +2556,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __user *, specialfile, int, swap_flags)
}
if (name)
putname(name);
- if (inode && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
return error;
}
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists