linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i

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: <48B21507.9050708@sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:12:23 +1000
From:	Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@....com>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	hch@....de
Subject: Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...

Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:12:59PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock
>> ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running
>> xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were
>> 'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>   Daniel
>>
>> --- [1]
>>
>> =======================================================
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>>  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
>> xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
> 
> False positive. We do:
> 
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);

Why not just change the above line to two lines:
	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);


> 	.....
> 	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 	xfs_iunlock(tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 	.....
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 
> Which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
> 
> The problem is that lockdep is complaining about the second call
> to xfs_lock_two_inodes(), which uses the subclasses 2 and 3.
> effectively it is seeing:
> 
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 		iolock/2
> 		ilock/2
> 		iolock/3
> 		ilock/3
> 	.....
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 		ilock/2
> 		ilock/3
> 
> 
> But because the original lock order was ilock/2->iolock/3, the
> second call to xfs_lock_two_inodes is seeing iolock/3->ilock/2
> which it then complains about....
> 
> Christoph - I think we're going to need to pass a lockdep 'order'
> flag into xfs_lock_two_inodes() to avoid this so the second call
> can use different classes to the first call. Or perhaps a '_nested'
> variant of the call...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
--
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/