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  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:	Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:52:34 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Surbhi Palande <csurbhi@...il.com>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>,
	Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] xfs: Move ilock before transaction start in
 xfs_setattr_size()

On Tue 24-01-12 17:59:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:34:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > In xfs we first take ilock and start transaction afterwards.
> 
> The correct order is to allocate the transaction, reserve the space
> for it and then take the ilock.  We cannot hold the ilock over the
> transaction reservation because that can deadlock the journal.
>
> That is, to make space for the new transaction reservation, we may
> need to take the ilock to flush the inode and allow the journal tail
> to move forwards to make space for the new transaction.  If we
> already hold the ilock, then it can't be flushed, we can't make
> space available in the journal and hence deadlock.
  Thanks for clarification!

> Maybe you confused the ilock vs the iolock.  We can hold the iolock
> over the trans alloc/reserve because that lock is not required to
> move the tail of the journal, so the deadlock doesn't exist.
  Ups! I now had a look at what xfs_rw_ilock() does. I always thought it's
just a plain rw semaphore and now I see it takes several locks depending on
the argument. Ugh, a bit surprising for XFS newcomer as me ;) But now
things become clearer so I fix my patches with this new knowledge in mind.
So just disregard my locking comments. They were likely bogus.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists