| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070419083407.GD20928@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:34:07 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
reiserfs-dev@...esys.com, "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@...esys.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: dio_get_page() lockdep complaints
On Thu, Apr 19 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:57 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 19 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:38:30 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Doing some testing on CFQ, I ran into this 100% reproducible report:
> > > >
> > > > =======================================================
> > > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > > 2.6.21-rc7 #5
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > fio/9741 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > > (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<b018cb34>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
> > > >
> > > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > > (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<b038c6e5>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
> > > >
> > > > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is the correct ranking: i_mutex outside mmap_sem.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > > >
> > > > -> #1 (&inode->i_mutex){--..}:
> > > > [<b013e3fb>] __lock_acquire+0xdee/0xf9c
> > > > [<b013e600>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
> > > > [<b038c4a5>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x73/0x297
> > > > [<b038c6e5>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
> > > > [<b01b17e9>] reiserfs_file_release+0x54/0x447
> > > > [<b016afe7>] __fput+0x53/0x101
> > > > [<b016b0ee>] fput+0x19/0x1c
> > > > [<b015bcd5>] remove_vma+0x3b/0x4d
> > > > [<b015c659>] do_munmap+0x17f/0x1cf
> > > > [<b015c6db>] sys_munmap+0x32/0x42
> > > > [<b0103f04>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5d/0x99
> > > > [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> > > >
> > > > -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
> > > > [<b013e259>] __lock_acquire+0xc4c/0xf9c
> > > > [<b013e600>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
> > > > [<b0137b92>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
> > > > [<b018cb34>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
> > > > [<b018d7a9>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x514/0xe2a
> > > > [<b01cf449>] ext3_direct_IO+0x98/0x1e5
> > > > [<b014e8df>] generic_file_direct_IO+0x63/0x133
> > > > [<b01500e9>] generic_file_aio_read+0x16b/0x222
> > > > [<b017f8b6>] aio_rw_vect_retry+0x5a/0x116
> > > > [<b0180147>] aio_run_iocb+0x69/0x129
> > > > [<b0180a78>] io_submit_one+0x194/0x2eb
> > > > [<b0181331>] sys_io_submit+0x92/0xe7
> > > > [<b0103f90>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > > > [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> > >
> > > But here reiserfs is taking i_mutex in its file_operations.release(),
> > > which can be called under mmap_sem.
> > >
> > > Vladimir's recent de14569f94513279e3d44d9571a421e9da1759ae.
> > > "resierfs: avoid tail packing if an inode was ever mmapped" comes real
> > > close to this code, but afaict it did not cause this bug.
> > >
> > > I can't think of anything which we've done in the 2.6.21 cycle which
> > > would have caused this to start happening. Odd.
> >
> > The bug may be holder, let me know if you want me to check 2.6.20 or
> > earlier.
>
> Would be great if you could test 2.6.20. I have a feeling that I missed
> something, but what? We didn't change the refcounting of lifetime of
> vma.vm_file...
2.6.20.7 tested, same lockdep triggers. Attached for reference.
> > > > The test run was fio, the job file used is:
> > > >
> > > > # fio job file snip below
> > > > [global]
> > > > bs=4k
> > > > buffered=0
> > > > ioengine=libaio
> > > > iodepth=4
> > > > thread
> > > >
> > > > [readers]
> > > > numjobs=8
> > > > size=128m
> > > > rw=read
> > > > # fio job file snip above
> > > >
> > > > Filesystem was ext3, default mkfs and mount options. Kernel was
> > > > 2.6.21-rc7 as of this morning, with some CFQ patches applied.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's interesting that lockdep learned the (wrong) ranking from a reiserfs
> > > operation then later detected it being violated by ext3.
> >
> > It's a scratch test box, which for some reason has reiserfs as the
> > rootfs. So reiser gets to run first :-)
>
> direct-io reads against reiserfs also will take i_mutex outside mmap_sem.
> As will pagefaults inside generic_file_write() (which is where this ranking
> is primarily defined).
>
> So an all-reiserfs system should be getting the same reports. Obviously,
> that isn't happening.
>
> It's a bit odd that reiserfs is playing with file contents within
> file_operations.release(): there could be other files open against that
> inode. One would expect this sort of thing to be happening in an
> inode_operation. But it's been like that for a long time.
>
> Is it possible that fio was changed? That it was changed to close() the fd
> before doing the munmapping whereas it used to hold the file open?
It's been a while since I tested on this box, so I don't really recall.
But fio does close() the fd before doing munmap(). This particular test
case doesn't use mmap(), though.
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.20.7 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
fio/6651 is trying to acquire lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<b01899c4>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
but task is already holding lock:
(&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<b0385e85>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&inode->i_mutex){--..}:
[<b013ba73>] __lock_acquire+0xc86/0xd64
[<b013bba8>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
[<b0385c45>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x73/0x297
[<b0385e85>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[<b01ae3b5>] reiserfs_file_release+0x54/0x44b
[<b0167b27>] __fput+0x53/0x101
[<b0167c2e>] fput+0x19/0x1c
[<b015884c>] remove_vma+0x37/0x49
[<b01591d0>] do_munmap+0x17f/0x1d0
[<b0159253>] sys_munmap+0x32/0x42
[<b0102f04>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5d/0x99
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
[<b013b8f5>] __lock_acquire+0xb08/0xd64
[<b013bba8>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
[<b013701e>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
[<b01899c4>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
[<b018a639>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x514/0xe2a
[<b01cc009>] ext3_direct_IO+0x98/0x1e5
[<b014b72b>] generic_file_direct_IO+0x63/0x133
[<b014cf79>] generic_file_aio_read+0x16b/0x222
[<b017c466>] aio_rw_vect_retry+0x5a/0x116
[<b017ccf7>] aio_run_iocb+0x69/0x129
[<b017d6ed>] io_submit_one+0x194/0x2ec
[<b017dffb>] sys_io_submit+0x92/0xe6
[<b0102f90>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by fio/6651:
#0: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<b0385e85>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
stack backtrace:
[<b0103f54>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
[<b01045f6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<b010467d>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[<b0139d29>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x68/0x71
[<b013b8f5>] __lock_acquire+0xb08/0xd64
[<b013bba8>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
[<b013701e>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
[<b01899c4>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
[<b018a639>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x514/0xe2a
[<b01cc009>] ext3_direct_IO+0x98/0x1e5
[<b014b72b>] generic_file_direct_IO+0x63/0x133
[<b014cf79>] generic_file_aio_read+0x16b/0x222
[<b017c466>] aio_rw_vect_retry+0x5a/0x116
[<b017ccf7>] aio_run_iocb+0x69/0x129
[<b017d6ed>] io_submit_one+0x194/0x2ec
[<b017dffb>] sys_io_submit+0x92/0xe6
[<b0102f90>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
=======================
--
Jens Axboe
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists