linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 102/177] jbd2: Fix lockdep splat with generic/270 test

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:53:50 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 102/177] jbd2: Fix lockdep splat with generic/270 test

4.9-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

[ Upstream commit c52c47e4b4fbe4284602fc2ccbfc4a4d8dc05b49 ]

I've hit a lockdep splat with generic/270 test complaining that:

3216.fsstress.b/3533 is trying to acquire lock:
 (jbd2_handle){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff813152e0>] jbd2_log_wait_commit+0x0/0x150

but task is already holding lock:
 (jbd2_handle){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff8130bd3b>] start_this_handle+0x35b/0x850

The underlying problem is that jbd2_journal_force_commit_nested()
(called from ext4_should_retry_alloc()) may get called while a
transaction handle is started. In such case it takes care to not wait
for commit of the running transaction (which would deadlock) but only
for a commit of a transaction that is already committing (which is safe
as that doesn't wait for any filesystem locks).

In fact there are also other callers of jbd2_log_wait_commit() that take
care to pass tid of a transaction that is already committing and for
those cases, the lockdep instrumentation is too restrictive and leading
to false positive reports. Fix the problem by calling
jbd2_might_wait_for_commit() from jbd2_log_wait_commit() only if the
transaction isn't already committing.

Fixes: 1eaa566d368b214d99cbb973647c1b0b8102a9ae
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/jbd2/journal.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
@@ -691,8 +691,21 @@ int jbd2_log_wait_commit(journal_t *jour
 {
 	int err = 0;

-	jbd2_might_wait_for_commit(journal);
 	read_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
+	/*
+	 * Some callers make sure transaction is already committing and in that
+	 * case we cannot block on open handles anymore. So don't warn in that
+	 * case.
+	 */
+	if (tid_gt(tid, journal->j_commit_sequence) &&
+	    (!journal->j_committing_transaction ||
+	     journal->j_committing_transaction->t_tid != tid)) {
+		read_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
+		jbd2_might_wait_for_commit(journal);
+		read_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
+	}
+#endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_JBD2_DEBUG
 	if (!tid_geq(journal->j_commit_request, tid)) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR