| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:04:32 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Blk-cgroup: Fix potential deallock in blk-cgroup
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 04:48:41PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
> Hi
>
> I triggered a lockdep warnning as following.
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.33-rc2 #1
> -------------------------------------------------------
> test_io_control/7357 is trying to acquire lock:
> (blkio_list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<c053a949>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x3b/0x9e
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #2 (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}:
> [<c04583b7>] validate_chain+0x8bc/0xb9c
> [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789
> [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7
> [<c0692b0a>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x27/0x5a
> [<c053a4e1>] blkiocg_add_blkio_group+0x1a/0x6d
> [<c053cac7>] cfq_get_queue+0x225/0x3de
> [<c053eec2>] cfq_set_request+0x217/0x42d
> [<c052c8a6>] elv_set_request+0x17/0x26
> [<c0532a0f>] get_request+0x203/0x2c5
> [<c0532ae9>] get_request_wait+0x18/0x10e
> [<c0533470>] __make_request+0x2ba/0x375
> [<c0531985>] generic_make_request+0x28d/0x30f
> [<c0532da7>] submit_bio+0x8a/0x8f
> [<c04d827a>] submit_bh+0xf0/0x10f
> [<c04d91d2>] ll_rw_block+0xc0/0xf9
> [<f86e9705>] ext3_find_entry+0x319/0x544 [ext3]
> [<f86eae58>] ext3_lookup+0x2c/0xb9 [ext3]
> [<c04c3e1b>] do_lookup+0xd3/0x172
> [<c04c56c8>] link_path_walk+0x5fb/0x95c
> [<c04c5a65>] path_walk+0x3c/0x81
> [<c04c5b63>] do_path_lookup+0x21/0x8a
> [<c04c66cc>] do_filp_open+0xf0/0x978
> [<c04c0c7e>] open_exec+0x1b/0xb7
> [<c04c1436>] do_execve+0xbb/0x266
> [<c04081a9>] sys_execve+0x24/0x4a
> [<c04028a2>] ptregs_execve+0x12/0x18
>
> -> #1 (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}:
> [<c04583b7>] validate_chain+0x8bc/0xb9c
> [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789
> [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7
> [<c0692b0a>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x27/0x5a
> [<c053dd2a>] cfq_unlink_blkio_group+0x17/0x41
> [<c053a6eb>] blkiocg_destroy+0x72/0xc7
> [<c0467df0>] cgroup_diput+0x4a/0xb2
> [<c04ca473>] dentry_iput+0x93/0xb7
> [<c04ca4b3>] d_kill+0x1c/0x36
> [<c04cb5c5>] dput+0xf5/0xfe
> [<c04c6084>] do_rmdir+0x95/0xbe
> [<c04c60ec>] sys_rmdir+0x10/0x12
> [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32
>
> -> #0 (blkio_list_lock){+.+...}:
> [<c0458117>] validate_chain+0x61c/0xb9c
> [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789
> [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7
> [<c06929fd>] _raw_spin_lock+0x1e/0x4e
> [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e
> [<c0467f1e>] cgroup_file_write+0xc6/0x1c0
> [<c04bd2f3>] vfs_write+0x8c/0x116
> [<c04bd7c6>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
> [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 1 lock held by test_io_control/7357:
> #0: (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<c053a949>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x3b/0x9e
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 7357, comm: test_io_control Not tainted 2.6.33-rc2 #1
> Call Trace:
> [<c045754f>] print_circular_bug+0x91/0x9d
> [<c0458117>] validate_chain+0x61c/0xb9c
> [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789
> [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7
> [<c053a990>] ? blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e
> [<c06929fd>] _raw_spin_lock+0x1e/0x4e
> [<c053a990>] ? blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e
> [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e
> [<c0467f1e>] cgroup_file_write+0xc6/0x1c0
> [<c0454df5>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
> [<c044d93a>] ? cpu_clock+0x2e/0x44
> [<c050e6ec>] ? security_file_permission+0xf/0x11
> [<c04bcdda>] ? rw_verify_area+0x8a/0xad
> [<c0467e58>] ? cgroup_file_write+0x0/0x1c0
> [<c04bd2f3>] vfs_write+0x8c/0x116
> [<c04bd7c6>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
> [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32
>
> To prevent deadlock, we should take locks as following sequence:
>
> blkio_list_lock -> queue_lock -> blkcg_lock.
>
> The following patch should fix this bug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Thanks Gui. So, we acquired locks as follows.
queue_lock -> blkcg_lock (cfq_get_queue -> blkiocg_add_blkio_group path)
blkio_list_lock -> queue_lock (blkiocg_destroy -> blkio_unlink_group_fn)
And now we are trying to take blkcg_lock --> blkio_list_lock which is a
candidate for circular dependency.
Looks good.
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Thanks
Vivek
> ---
> block/blk-cgroup.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> index 1fa2654..e7dbbaf 100644
> --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
> +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> @@ -147,16 +147,16 @@ blkiocg_weight_write(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cftype, u64 val)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> blkcg = cgroup_to_blkio_cgroup(cgroup);
> + spin_lock(&blkio_list_lock);
> spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
> blkcg->weight = (unsigned int)val;
> hlist_for_each_entry(blkg, n, &blkcg->blkg_list, blkcg_node) {
> - spin_lock(&blkio_list_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(blkiop, &blkio_list, list)
> blkiop->ops.blkio_update_group_weight_fn(blkg,
> blkcg->weight);
> - spin_unlock(&blkio_list_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
> + spin_unlock(&blkio_list_lock);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 1.5.4.rc3
>
--
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