linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/7] mm: fix mm_take_all

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808071422120.21264@blonde.site>
Date:	Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:27:34 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/7] mm: fix mm_take_all_locks() locking order

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 13:14 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Which the locking hierarchy in mm/rmap.c confirms as 'valid'.
> > > 
> > > Although I don't think there are any users of these two locks that don't
> > > hold the mmap_sem, therefore the nesting is strictly ok, but since we
> > > already have an established order, we might as well respect it.
> > 
> > Yes, I agree.
> > 
> > > Fix this by first taking all the mapping->i_mmap_lock instances and then
> > > take all anon_vma->lock instances.
> > 
> > Okay.  I'd have preferred taking anon_vma lock after i_mmap_lock
> > each time around the loop, but imagine that's just as problematic
> > for lockdep as the original.
> 
> I'm a little confused as to what you mean here, are you suggesting:
> 
>   for_each_vma() {
>     if (file)
>       vm_lock_mapping();
>     if (anon)
>       vm_lock_anon();
>   }
> 
> ?

Yes, I would have preferred that.

> 
> That can still create the inverse lock order due to each vma being only
> of a single type, and therefore the lock order is set by the vma order,
> which can be anything.

Yes, I imagined it would be just as problematic for lockep.

Hugh
--
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/