linux-kernel - Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] INFO: possible recursive locking detected

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: <49910E55.7050905@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:19:17 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] INFO: possible recursive locking detected

Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:06:39AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> 
>> BTW, I found another bug in current code:
> 
> Why is that a bug?  If _anything_ had been trying to acquire the
> rwsem in question, it would be fscked anyway.  Not to mention
> that nothing could have ever seen that struct super_block in this
> particular case, as a general rule
> 	* if something might be blocked on your mutex/rwsem or spinning
> on a spinlock, releasing it before you free the object won't save your
> arse.
> 	You have no promise whatsoever that whoever's been trying to
> get the lock in question will even get out of the locking primitive
> before the memory that contains the lock gets freed.  In case of superblocks
> in general, you don't free them until ->s_count hits zero.  At that point
> anything as much as remembering the address of that superblock is already
> FUBAR.
> 

This is not the general case. This sb won't be seen by anyone, and destroy_super()
is called on a sb with ->s_count == 1 and ->s_umount held.

Actually I ran into this after Peter's patch applied:

=========================
[ BUG: held lock freed! ]
-------------------------
mount/13413 is freeing memory e767a800-e767abff, with a lock still held there!
 (&type->s_umount_key#29/1){--..}, at: [<c04a4104>] sget+0x1ea/0x324
2 locks held by mount/13413:
 #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#29/1){--..}, at: [<c04a4104>] sget+0x1ea/0x324
 #1:  (&type->s_umount_key#30){--..}, at: [<c04a3f72>] sget+0x58/0x324

stack backtrace:
Pid: 13413, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.29-rc4 #548
Call Trace:
 [<c044d865>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0xc9/0x105
 [<c049c86d>] kfree+0x82/0xd1
 [<c04a41e0>] ? sget+0x2c6/0x324
 [<c04a41e0>] sget+0x2c6/0x324
 [<c045dda9>] ? cgroup_set_super+0x0/0x3e
 [<c045cf6f>] ? cgroup_test_super+0x0/0x2f
 [<c045f840>] cgroup_get_sb+0x8d/0x284
 [<c0489216>] ? kstrdup+0x31/0x53
 [<c04a46aa>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b
 [<c04a4733>] do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf
 [<c04b5dc6>] do_mount+0x5c4/0x61b
 [<c04b477a>] ? copy_mount_options+0x2c/0x111
 [<c04b5e86>] sys_mount+0x69/0xa0
 [<c0403351>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31

--
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/