linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200610231236.54317.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:36:53 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...uxmail.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes.

On Monday, 23 October 2006 06:12, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> XFS can continue to submit I/O from a timer routine, even after
> freezeable kernel and userspace threads are frozen. This doesn't seem to
> be an issue for current swsusp code,

So it doesn't look like we need the patch _now_.

> but is definitely an issue for Suspend2, where the pages being written could
> be overwritten by Suspend2's atomic copy.

And IMO that's a good reason why we shouldn't use RCU pages for storing the
image.  XFS is one known example that breaks things if we do so and
there may be more such things that we don't know of.  The fact that they
haven't appeared in testing so far doesn't mean they don't exist and
moreover some things like that may appear in the future.

> We can address this issue by freezing bdevs after stopping userspace
> threads, and thawing them prior to thawing userspace.

This will only address the issues related to filesystems, but the RCU pages
can also be modified from interrupt context by other code, AFAICT.

> Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...pend2.net>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/process.c b/kernel/power/process.c
> index 4a001fe..ddeeb50 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/process.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/process.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/suspend.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/syscalls.h>
> +#include <linux/buffer_head.h>
>  #include <linux/freezer.h>
>  
>  /* 
> @@ -20,6 +21,58 @@ #include <linux/freezer.h>
>   */
>  #define TIMEOUT	(20 * HZ)
>  
> +struct frozen_fs
> +{
> +	struct list_head fsb_list;
> +	struct super_block *sb;
> +};
> +
> +LIST_HEAD(frozen_fs_list);
> +
> +void freezer_make_fses_rw(void)
> +{
> +	struct frozen_fs *fs, *next_fs;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(fs, next_fs, &frozen_fs_list, fsb_list) {
> +		thaw_bdev(fs->sb->s_bdev, fs->sb);
> +
> +		list_del(&fs->fsb_list);
> +		kfree(fs);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +/* 
> + * Done after userspace is frozen, so there should be no danger of
> + * fses being unmounted while we're in here.
> + */
> +int freezer_make_fses_ro(void)
> +{
> +	struct frozen_fs *fs;
> +	struct super_block *sb;
> +
> +	/* Generate the list */
> +	list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> +		if (!sb->s_root || !sb->s_bdev ||
> +		    (sb->s_frozen == SB_FREEZE_TRANS) ||
> +		    (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		fs = kmalloc(sizeof(struct frozen_fs), GFP_ATOMIC);
> +		if (!fs)
> +			return 1;

You're still leaking memory here.

I have a simpler version of this patch without this leak, but we have decided
we won't apply it anyway.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
		R. Buckminster Fuller
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/