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  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:	Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:52:34 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <>
To:	Tao Ma <>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <>,
	Jiaying Zhang <>,
Subject: Re: [URGENT PATCH] ext4: fix potential deadlock in

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:27:39PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> No, it doesn't mean the ext4_truncate. But another race pasted below.
> Flush inode's i_completed_io_list before calling ext4_io_wait to
> prevent the following deadlock scenario: A page fault happens while
> some process is writing inode A. During page fault,
> shrink_icache_memory is called that in turn evicts another inode
> B. Inode B has some pending io_end work so it calls ext4_ioend_wait()
> that waits for inode B's i_ioend_count to become zero. However, inode
> B's ioend work was queued behind some of inode A's ioend work on the
> same cpu's ext4-dio-unwritten workqueue. As the ext4-dio-unwritten
> thread on that cpu is processing inode A's ioend work, it tries to
> grab inode A's i_mutex lock. Since the i_mutex lock of inode A is
> still hold before the page fault happened, we enter a deadlock.

... but that shouldn't be a problem since we're not holding A's
i_mutex at this point, right?  Or am I missing something?

	   	       	       	       - Ted
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists