linux-kernel - Re: dquot.c: possible circular locking Re: [2.6.20] BUG: workqueue leaked lock

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: <20070320140049.GC14319@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:00:49 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
Cc:	Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: dquot.c: possible circular locking Re: [2.6.20] BUG: workqueue leaked lock

On Tue 20-03-07 14:44:46, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
> > > > > 
> > > > > -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_console() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
> > > > > -> #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_console in dquot_alloc_space() with print_warning()
> > > 
> > > Once more - should be:
> > >  -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_close() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
> > >  -> #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_mutex in dquot_alloc_space() with print_warning()
> >   Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
> > acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
> > con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
> > along the path for sysfs. And we can hardly get rid of it in the quota code.
> >   Now none of these is a real deadlock as quota should never call
> > print_warning() for sysfs (it doesn't use quota) but still it's nasty. I
> > suppose tty_mutex is above i_mutex because of those sysfs calls and it
> > seems sysfs must be called under tty_mutex because of races with
> > init_dev(). So it's not easy to get rid of that dependency either.
> 
> I wonder if this cannot be done with a workqueue (message to a buffer,
> maybe after try_lock on tty_mutex) and BTW isn't there any "modern"
> way to queue console messages like these?
  I don't know about any such way...

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
-
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/