linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix a potential deadlock in __ext4_es

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140713070014.GA9301@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Jul 2014 15:00:15 +0800
From:	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix a potential deadlock in __ext4_es_shrink()

On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 03:33:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This fixes the following lockdep complaint:
> 
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 3.16.0-rc2-mm1+ #7 Tainted: G           O
> -------------------------------------------------------
> kworker/u24:0/4356 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&(&sbi->s_es_lru_lock)->rlock){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81285fff>] __ext4_es_shrink+0x4f/0x2e0
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&ei->i_es_lock){++++-.}, at: [<ffffffff81286961>] ext4_es_insert_extent+0x71/0x180
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&ei->i_es_lock);
>                                lock(&(&sbi->s_es_lru_lock)->rlock);
>                                lock(&ei->i_es_lock);
>   lock(&(&sbi->s_es_lru_lock)->rlock);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> 6 locks held by kworker/u24:0/4356:
>  #0:  ("writeback"){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81071d00>] process_one_work+0x180/0x560
>  #1:  ((&(&wb->dwork)->work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81071d00>] process_one_work+0x180/0x560
>  #2:  (&type->s_umount_key#22){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff811a9c74>] grab_super_passive+0x44/0x90
>  #3:  (jbd2_handle){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812979f9>] start_this_handle+0x189/0x5f0
>  #4:  (&ei->i_data_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff81247062>] ext4_map_blocks+0x132/0x550
>  #5:  (&ei->i_es_lock){++++-.}, at: [<ffffffff81286961>] ext4_es_insert_extent+0x71/0x180
> 
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 4356 Comm: kworker/u24:0 Tainted: G           O   3.16.0-rc2-mm1+ #7
> Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> Workqueue: writeback bdi_writeback_workfn (flush-253:0)
>  ffffffff8213dce0 ffff880014b07538 ffffffff815df0bb 0000000000000007
>  ffffffff8213e040 ffff880014b07588 ffffffff815db3dd ffff880014b07568
>  ffff880014b07610 ffff88003b868930 ffff88003b868908 ffff88003b868930
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff815df0bb>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x68
>  [<ffffffff815db3dd>] print_circular_bug+0x1fb/0x20c
>  [<ffffffff810a7a3e>] __lock_acquire+0x163e/0x1d00
>  [<ffffffff815e89dc>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
>  [<ffffffff815ddc7b>] ? __slab_alloc+0x4a8/0x4ce
>  [<ffffffff81285fff>] ? __ext4_es_shrink+0x4f/0x2e0
>  [<ffffffff810a8707>] lock_acquire+0x87/0x120
>  [<ffffffff81285fff>] ? __ext4_es_shrink+0x4f/0x2e0
>  [<ffffffff8128592d>] ? ext4_es_free_extent+0x5d/0x70
>  [<ffffffff815e6f09>] _raw_spin_lock+0x39/0x50
>  [<ffffffff81285fff>] ? __ext4_es_shrink+0x4f/0x2e0
>  [<ffffffff8119760b>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x18b/0x1a0
>  [<ffffffff81285fff>] __ext4_es_shrink+0x4f/0x2e0
>  [<ffffffff812869b8>] ext4_es_insert_extent+0xc8/0x180
>  [<ffffffff812470f4>] ext4_map_blocks+0x1c4/0x550
>  [<ffffffff8124c4c4>] ext4_writepages+0x6d4/0xd00
> 	...
> 
> Reported-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> Reported-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>

Thanks for fixing this.  It looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>

I will pick it up into my patch set for improving es shrinker and look
at whether or not it can reduce the latency.

Thanks,
                                                - Zheng

> ---
>  fs/ext4/extents_status.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> index 3f5c188..0b7e28e 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c
> @@ -966,10 +966,10 @@ retry:
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  
> -		if (ei->i_es_lru_nr == 0 || ei == locked_ei)
> +		if (ei->i_es_lru_nr == 0 || ei == locked_ei ||
> +		    !write_trylock(&ei->i_es_lock))
>  			continue;
>  
> -		write_lock(&ei->i_es_lock);
>  		shrunk = __es_try_to_reclaim_extents(ei, nr_to_scan);
>  		if (ei->i_es_lru_nr == 0)
>  			list_del_init(&ei->i_es_lru);
> -- 
> 2.0.0
> 
--
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