linux-kernel - Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do

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, 27 Nov 2007 14:38:52 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do_exit

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:20:22 +0100
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> this patch fixes a sles9 system hang in start_this_handle from a
> customer with some heavy workload where all tasks are waiting on
> kjournald to commit the transaction, but kjournald waits on t_updates
> to go down to zero (it never does). This was reported as a lowmem
> shortage deadlock but when checking the debug data I noticed the VM
> wasn't under pressure at all (well it was really under vm pressure,
> because lots of tasks hanged in the VM prune_dcache methods trying to
> flush dirty inodes, but no task was hanging in GFP_NOFS mode, the
> holder of the journal handle should have if this was a vm issue in the
> first place). No task was apparently holding the leftover handle in
> the committing transaction, so I deduced t_updates was stuck to 1
> because a journal_stop was never run by some path (this turned out to
> be correct). With a debug patch adding proper reverse links and stack
> trace logging in ext3 deployed in production, I found journal_stop is
> never run because mark_inode_dirty_sync is called inside release_task
> called by do_exit. (that was quite fun because I would have never
> thought about this subtleness, I thought a regular path in ext3 had a
> bug and it forgot to call journal_stop)
> 
> do_exit->release_task->mark_inode_dirty_sync->schedule() (will never
> come back to run journal_stop)

I don't see why the schedule() will not return?  Because the task has
PF_EXITING set?  Doesn't TASK_DEAD do that?

> The reason is that shrink_dcache_parent is racy by design (feature not
> a bug) and it can do blocking I/O in some case, but the point is that
> calling shrink_dcache_parent at the last stage of do_exit isn't safe
> for self-reaping tasks.
> 
> I guess the memory pressure of the unbalanced highmem system allowed
> to trigger this more easily.
> 
> Now mainline doesn't have this line in iput (like sles9 has):
> 
>     	     if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DELAYED)
> 	     			mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
> 
> so it will probably not crash with ext3, but for example ext2
> implements an I/O-blocking ext2_put_inode that will lead to similar
> screwups with ext2_free_blocks never coming back and it's definitely
> wrong to call blocking-IO paths inside do_exit. So this should fix a
> subtle bug in mainline too (not verified in practice though). The
> equivalent fix for ext3 is also not verified yet to fix the problem in
> sles9 but I don't have doubt it will (it usually takes days to crash,
> so it'll take weeks to be sure).
> 
> An alternate fix would be to offload that work to a kernel thread, but
> I don't think a reschedule for this is worth it, the vm should be able
> to collect those entries for the synchronous release_task.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c
> --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> @@ -2265,7 +2265,8 @@ static void proc_flush_task_mnt(struct v
>  	name.len = snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", pid);
>  	dentry = d_hash_and_lookup(mnt->mnt_root, &name);
>  	if (dentry) {
> -		shrink_dcache_parent(dentry);
> +		if (!(current->flags & PF_EXITING))
> +			shrink_dcache_parent(dentry);
>  		d_drop(dentry);
>  		dput(dentry);
>  	}

What are the implications of not running shrink_dcache_parent() on the exit
path sometimes?  We'll leave procfs stuff behind?  Will they be reaped by
memory pressure later on?


-
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/