linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: Fix potentail deadlock between delete & sysfs ops

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, 17 Aug 2017 19:23:43 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: Fix potentail deadlock between delete &
 sysfs ops

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:18:18 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:13:20 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:27:22 -0400
> > Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >   
> > > It is actually what the patch is trying to do by checking for the
> > > deletion flag in the mutex_trylock loop. Please note that mutex does not
> > > guarantee FIFO ordering of lock acquisition. As a result, cpu1 may call
> > > mutex_lock() and wait for it while cpu2 can set the deletion flag later
> > > and get the mutex first before cpu1. So checking for the deletion flag
> > > before taking the mutex isn't enough.    
> > 
> > Yeah, I figured that out already (crossed emails). BTW, how did you
> > trigger this warning. I'm playing around with adding loop devices,
> > volume groups, and logical volumes, and reading the trace files
> > created in the sysfs directory, then removing those items, but it's
> > not triggering the "delete" path. What operation deletes the partition?  
> 
> I'm guessing that deleting an actual partition may work (unfortunately,
> my test box has no partition to delete ;-) I'll find another box to
> test on.
>

OK, deleting a partition doesn't trigger the lockdep splat. But I also
added a printk in the BLKPG_DEL_PARTITION case switch, which also
doesn't print. What command do I need to do to trigger that path?

Thanks,

-- Steve