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]

Date:	Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:57:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	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...

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 11:02 +1000, 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);
> 	.....
> 	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....

Does the annotation I used for
double_lock_balance()/double_unlock_balance() work?

Basically, it assumes the held lock (this_rq) has subclass 0, but
because double_lock_balance() can unlock and relock, depending on order,
it can end up being 1 at the end. So what we do is reset the subclass
(after unlocking the now 0 lock) to 0 using lock_set_subclass().


--
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/