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: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:30:12 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> 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.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 Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:27:23AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > 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. Hi Jan Kara, I just understood why some guys in this space got mad at Dept reports. I barely got reports from the lock you mentioned with my system - precisely speaking only one, even though I've been rebooting my system many times. But another report that someone gave for me showed there were a lot of reports from the lock. Your comment and the report are so much helpful. I need to assign each's own class first for the buffer locks. Thank you very much. Thanks, Byungchul > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@...e.com> > SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists