linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.22] circular lock detected

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:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:02:43 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, folkert@...heusden.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.22] circular lock detected

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:01:35 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Mon 03-09-07 05:49:59, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:27:02 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:00:33 +0200 Folkert van Heusden <folkert@...heusden.com> wrote:

> > > > Has been reported before, but I don't recall whether we fixed it.  Jan,
> > > > do you know>?
> > >   I think we at least found a solution: Teach lockdep that I_MUTEX for
> > > different filesystems is different. Peter Zilstra wrote a patch for that
> > > and Folkert even confirmed that it fixes the problem for him. I'm not
> > > sure what happened with the patch afterwards though. Adding Peter to CC
> > > :).
> > 
> > But this is a tty_lock-versus-dqptr_sem ranking error.  Unrelated to i_mutex?
>   The final report is for this ranking but the locking chain (if I understand it
> right) is:
> tty_mutex (con_close) -> i_mutex (sysfs: remove_subdir)
> i_mutex (do_truncate) -> i_alloc_sem (notify_change) -> truncate_mutex (ext3_truncate)
> truncate_mutex (ext3_get_blocks_handle) -> dqptr_sem (dquot_alloc_space)
> 
> So it complains about tty_mutex vs dqptr_sem (I don't know why it does not
> complain about tty_mutex vs i_mutex) but the wrong link in the chain is
> that i_mutex from remove_subdir() [sysfs] and i_mutex from do_truncate()
> [ext3] are different and should never depend on each other...
> 

Found it again.

---

Give each filesystem its own inode lock class. The various filesystems have
different locking order wrt the inode locks; esp. the pseudo filesystems
differ from the rest.

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
---
 fs/inode.c         |   12 +++++++++---
 include/linux/fs.h |    5 +++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/inode.c
+++ linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
@@ -142,6 +142,15 @@ static struct inode *alloc_inode(struct 
 			return NULL;
 		}
 
+		spin_lock_init(&inode->i_lock);
+		lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_lock, &sb->s_type->i_lock_key);
+
+		mutex_init(&inode->i_mutex);
+		lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_mutex, &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key);
+
+		init_rwsem(&inode->i_alloc_sem);
+		lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_alloc_sem, &sb->s_type->i_alloc_sem_key);
+
 		mapping->a_ops = &empty_aops;
  		mapping->host = inode;
 		mapping->flags = 0;
@@ -190,8 +199,6 @@ void inode_init_once(struct inode *inode
 	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&inode->i_hash);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_dentry);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_devices);
-	mutex_init(&inode->i_mutex);
-	init_rwsem(&inode->i_alloc_sem);
 	INIT_RADIX_TREE(&inode->i_data.page_tree, GFP_ATOMIC);
 	rwlock_init(&inode->i_data.tree_lock);
 	spin_lock_init(&inode->i_data.i_mmap_lock);
@@ -199,7 +206,6 @@ void inode_init_once(struct inode *inode
 	spin_lock_init(&inode->i_data.private_lock);
 	INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT(&inode->i_data.i_mmap);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_data.i_mmap_nonlinear);
-	spin_lock_init(&inode->i_lock);
 	i_size_ordered_init(inode);
 #ifdef CONFIG_INOTIFY
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->inotify_watches);
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/fs.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1302,8 +1302,13 @@ struct file_system_type {
 	struct module *owner;
 	struct file_system_type * next;
 	struct list_head fs_supers;
+
 	struct lock_class_key s_lock_key;
 	struct lock_class_key s_umount_key;
+
+	struct lock_class_key i_lock_key;
+	struct lock_class_key i_mutex_key;
+	struct lock_class_key i_alloc_sem_key;
 };
 
 extern int get_sb_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,

-
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/