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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:27:23 +0100 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org, joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, willy@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com, bfields@...ldses.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org, minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com, sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, airlied@...ux.ie, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com, melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com Subject: Re: Report 1 in ext4 and journal based on v5.17-rc1 On Thu 17-02-22 20:10:03, Byungchul Park wrote: > [ 7.009608] =================================================== > [ 7.009613] DEPT: Circular dependency has been detected. > [ 7.009614] 5.17.0-rc1-00014-g8a599299c0cb-dirty #30 Tainted: G W > [ 7.009616] --------------------------------------------------- > [ 7.009617] summary > [ 7.009618] --------------------------------------------------- > [ 7.009618] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 7.009618] > [ 7.009619] context A > [ 7.009619] [S] (unknown)(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > [ 7.009621] [W] down_write(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > [ 7.009623] [E] event(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > [ 7.009624] > [ 7.009625] context B > [ 7.009625] [S] down_read(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > [ 7.009626] [W] wait(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > [ 7.009627] [E] up_read(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > [ 7.009628] Looking into this I have noticed that Dept here tracks bitlocks (buffer locks in particular) but it apparently treats locks on all buffers as one locking class so it conflates lock on superblock buffer with a lock on extent tree block buffer. These are wastly different locks with different locking constraints. So to avoid false positives in filesystems we will need to add annotations to differentiate locks on different buffers (based on what the block is used for). Similarly how we e.g. annotate i_rwsem for different inodes. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists