linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem

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: <20080507155914.d7790069.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 7 May 2008 15:59:14 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@....com, steiner@....com,
	holt@....com, npiggin@...e.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kanojsarcar@...oo.com,
	rdreier@...co.com, swise@...ngridcomputing.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...ranet.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hugh@...itas.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, aliguori@...ibm.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	marcelo@...ck.org, dada1@...mosbay.com, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem

On Thu, 8 May 2008 00:44:06 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:31:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Nope.  We only need to take the global lock before taking *two or more* of
> > the per-vma locks.
> > 
> > I really wish I'd thought of that.
> 
> I don't see how you can avoid taking the system-wide-global lock
> before every single anon_vma->lock/i_mmap_lock out there without
> mm_lock.
> 
> Please note, we can't allow a thread to be in the middle of
> zap_page_range while mmu_notifier_register runs.
> 
> vmtruncate takes 1 single lock, the i_mmap_lock of the inode. Not more
> than one lock and we've to still take the global-system-wide lock
> _before_ this single i_mmap_lock and no other lock at all.
> 
> Please elaborate, thanks!


umm...


	CPU0:			CPU1:

	spin_lock(a->lock);	spin_lock(b->lock);
	spin_lock(b->lock);	spin_lock(a->lock);

bad.

	CPU0:			CPU1:

	spin_lock(global_lock)	spin_lock(global_lock);
	spin_lock(a->lock);	spin_lock(b->lock);
	spin_lock(b->lock);	spin_lock(a->lock);

Is OK.


	CPU0:			CPU1:

	spin_lock(global_lock)	
	spin_lock(a->lock);	spin_lock(b->lock);
	spin_lock(b->lock);	spin_unlock(b->lock);
				spin_lock(a->lock);
				spin_unlock(a->lock);

also OK.

As long as all code paths which can take two-or-more locks are all covered
by the global lock there is no deadlock scenario.  If a thread takes just a
single instance of one of these locks without taking the global_lock then
there is also no deadlock.


Now, if we need to take both anon_vma->lock AND i_mmap_lock in the newly
added mm_lock() thing and we also take both those locks at the same time in
regular code, we're probably screwed.

--
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/