| 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: <20080610101427.GA4048@localdomain> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:14:27 +0200 From: Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com> To: Joel.Becker@...cle.com Cc: ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] deadlock between configfs_rmdir() and sys_rename() (WAS Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] configfs: Make multiple default_group) destructions lockdep friendly On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 06:58:00PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:43PM +0200, Louis Rilling wrote: > > Following an intuition, I just found a deadlock resulting from the whole default > > groups tree locking in configfs_detach_prep(). > > Ugh, thanks for catching this :-( > > > The issue here is that the VFS locks the i_mutex of the source and target > > directories of the rename in source -> target order (because none is ascendent > > of the other one), while configfs_detach_prep() takes them in default group > > order (or reverse order, I'm not sure), following the order specified by the > > groups' creator. > > What actual targets are you renaming? Sibling default groups? Actually the operation tries to rename a file in the source default group "foo/heartbeat/" to a new entry "bar" in a sibling default group "foo/node/" of the source default group. The operation itself is silly regarding configfs semantics, but VFS cannot know before locking the source and target directories... > > > The VFS protects itself against deadlocks of two concurrent renames with > > interverted source and target directories with i_sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex. Perhaps > > configfs should use the same lock before calling configfs_detach_prep()? > > Or maybe configfs would better find an alternative to locking the whole > > default groups tree? I strongly advocate for the latter, since this could also > > solve our issues with lockdep ;) > > I think the former actually works nicely. We are playing with > the subtree, and want to keep all operations out of it. Except, of > course, that we come into rmdir() with our parent i_mutex taken, so that > violates the ordering of the rename locks, right? Right. I suggested to use i_sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex, but we cannot do this from inside configfs_rmdir(), because locking an i_mutex (as the VFS does before calling configfs_rmdir()) before s_vfs_rename_mutex will also deadlock with lock_rename(). > I'm not against the latter AT ALL. I just haven't come up with > it yet - we can't remove parts of the tree, it must be all or none. > Hence, we lock them all speculatively. I'm slowly thinking about a solution, but I don't know the VFS enough yet, especially regarding dentry invalidation and locking. Would it be possible to start an rmdir() by moving the group to some unreachable place? We could probably use the mutex of the configfs subsystem and enlarge its scope to protect against concurrent mkdir(), check for user-created items under the group (and descendent default groups) to remove, invalidate all dentries and actually remove the group. Do you think that something is feasible in this way? Louis -- Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs - IRISA Skype: louis.rilling Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu Phone: (+33|0) 2 99 84 71 52 Avenue du General Leclerc Fax: (+33|0) 2 99 84 71 71 35042 Rennes CEDEX - France http://www.kerlabs.com/ -- 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