linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 1/3] Miscellaneous container fixes

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]

Date:	Fri, 1 Dec 2006 12:31:34 -0800
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	vatsa@...ibm.com, akpm@...l.org, sekharan@...ibm.com, dev@...ru,
	xemul@...ru, ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mbligh@...gle.com, winget@...gle.com,
	rohitseth@...gle.com, devel@...nvz.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, dipankar@...ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/3] Miscellaneous container fixes

Paul M wrote:
> Ah - this may be the lockup that PaulJ hit.

Yes - looks like this fixes it.  Thanks, Srivatsa.

And with that fix, it becomes obvious how to reproduce this problem:

	mount -t cpuset cpuset /dev/cpuset	# if not already mounted
	cd /dev/cpuset
	mkdir foo
	echo 1 > foo/cpu_exclusive
	rmdir foo				# hangs ...

However ...

Read the comment in kernel/cpuset.c for the routine cpuset_destroy().
It explains that update_flag() is called where it is (turning off
the cpu_exclusive flag, if it was set), to avoid the calling sequence:

  cpuset_destroy->update_flag->update_cpu_domains->lock_cpu_hotplug

while holding the callback_mutex, as that could ABBA deadlock with the
CPU hotplug code.

But with this container based rewrite of cpusets, it now seems that
cpuset_destroy -is- called holding the callback_mutex (though I don't
see any mention of that in the cpuset_destroy comment ;), so it would
seem that we once again are at risk for this ABBA deadlock.

I also notice that the comment for container_lock() in the file
kernel/container.c only mentions its use in the oom code.  That is
no longer the only, or even primary, user of this lock routine.
The kernel/cpuset.c code uses it frequently (without comment ;),
and I wouldn't be surprised to see other future controllers calling
container_lock() as well.

Looks like its time to update those comments, and think about what
was written there before, as that might catch a bug or two, such as
the one Srivatsa just fixed for us.

Most of those long locking comments in kernel/cpuset.c are there
for a reason - recording the results of a lesson learned in the
school of hard knocks.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/