| 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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: mem-hotplug + ksm make lockdep warning
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi Hugh,
>
> commit 62b61f611e(ksm: memory hotremove migration only) makes following
> lockdep warnings. Is this intentional?
No, certainly not intentional: thanks for finding this. Looking back,
I think the machine I tested memory hotplug versus KSM upon was not
the machine I habitually ran lockdep on, I bet I forgot to try it.
>
> More detail: current lockdep hieralcy is here.
And especial thanks for taking the trouble to present it in a way
that I find much easier to understand than lockdep's pronouncements.
>
> memory_notify
> offline_pages
> lock_system_sleep();
> mutex_lock(&pm_mutex);
> memory_notify(MEM_GOING_OFFLINE)
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain
> down_read(memory_chain.rwsem)
> ksm_memory_callback()
> mutex_lock(&ksm_thread_mutex); // memory_chain.rmsem -> ksm_thread_mutex order
> up_read(memory_chain.rwsem)
> memory_notify(MEM_OFFLINE)
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain
> down_read(memory_chain.rwsem) // ksm_thread_mutex -> memory_chain.rmsem order
> ksm_memory_callback()
> mutex_unlock(&ksm_thread_mutex);
> up_read(memory_chain.rwsem)
> unlock_system_sleep();
> mutex_unlock(&pm_mutex);
>
> So, I think pm_mutex protect ABBA deadlock. but it exist only when
> CONFIG_HIBERNATION=y. IOW, this code is not correct generically. Am I
> missing something?
I do remember taking great comfort from lock_system_sleep() i.e. pm_mutex
when I did the ksm_memory_callback(); but I think that comfort was more
along the lines of it making obvious that taking a mutex was okay there,
than it providing any safety. I think I was unconscious of the issue you
raise, perhaps didn't even notice rwsem in __blocking_notifier_call_chain.
But is it really a problem, given that it's down_read(rwsem) in each case?
Yes, but I had to look up akpm's comment on msync in ChangeLog-2.6.11 to
remember why:
And yes, the ranking of down_read() versus down() does matter:
Task A Task B Task C
down_read(rwsem)
down(sem)
down_write(rwsem)
down(sem)
down_read(rwsem)
C's down_write() will cause B's down_read to block.
B holds `sem', so A will never release `rwsem'.
Am I mistaken, or is get_any_page() in mm/memory-failure.c also relying
on lock_system_sleep() to do real locking, even without CONFIG_HIBERNATION?
If it is, then I think we should solve both problems by making it lock
unconditionally: though neither "lock_system_sleep" nor "pm_mutex" is an
appropriate name then... maybe "lock_memory_hotplug", but still using a
pm_mutex declared outside of CONFIG_PM? Seems a bit weird.
And some kind of lockdep annotation needed for ksm_memory_callback(),
to help it understand how the outer mutex makes the inner inversion safe?
Or does lockdep manage that without help?
I think I'm not going to find time to do the patch for a while,
so please go ahead if you can.
Thanks,
Hugh
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.36-rc7-mm1+ #148
> -------------------------------------------------------
> bash/1621 is trying to acquire lock:
> ((memory_chain).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81079339>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x69/0xc0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (ksm_thread_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8113a3aa>] ksm_memory_callback+0x3a/0xc0
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (ksm_thread_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> [<ffffffff8108b70a>] lock_acquire+0xaa/0x140
> [<ffffffff81505d74>] __mutex_lock_common+0x44/0x3f0
> [<ffffffff81506228>] mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x60
> [<ffffffff8113a3aa>] ksm_memory_callback+0x3a/0xc0
> [<ffffffff8150c21c>] notifier_call_chain+0x8c/0xe0
> [<ffffffff8107934e>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7e/0xc0
> [<ffffffff810793a6>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
> [<ffffffff813afbfb>] memory_notify+0x1b/0x20
> [<ffffffff81141b7c>] remove_memory+0x1cc/0x5f0
> [<ffffffff813af53d>] memory_block_change_state+0xfd/0x1a0
> [<ffffffff813afd62>] store_mem_state+0xe2/0xf0
> [<ffffffff813a0bb0>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff811bc116>] sysfs_write_file+0xe6/0x170
> [<ffffffff8114f398>] vfs_write+0xc8/0x190
> [<ffffffff8114fc14>] sys_write+0x54/0x90
> [<ffffffff810028b2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> -> #0 ((memory_chain).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> [<ffffffff8108b5ba>] __lock_acquire+0x155a/0x1600
> [<ffffffff8108b70a>] lock_acquire+0xaa/0x140
> [<ffffffff81506601>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
> [<ffffffff81079339>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x69/0xc0
> [<ffffffff810793a6>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
> [<ffffffff813afbfb>] memory_notify+0x1b/0x20
> [<ffffffff81141f1e>] remove_memory+0x56e/0x5f0
> [<ffffffff813af53d>] memory_block_change_state+0xfd/0x1a0
> [<ffffffff813afd62>] store_mem_state+0xe2/0xf0
> [<ffffffff813a0bb0>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff811bc116>] sysfs_write_file+0xe6/0x170
> [<ffffffff8114f398>] vfs_write+0xc8/0x190
> [<ffffffff8114fc14>] sys_write+0x54/0x90
> [<ffffffff810028b2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 5 locks held by bash/1621:
> #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811bc074>] sysfs_write_file+0x44/0x170
> #1: (s_active#110){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff811bc0fd>] sysfs_write_file+0xcd/0x170
> #2: (&mem->state_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff813af478>] memory_block_change_state+0x38/0x1a0
> #3: (pm_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81141ad9>] remove_memory+0x129/0x5f0
> #4: (ksm_thread_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8113a3aa>] ksm_memory_callback+0x3a/0xc0
>
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 1621, comm: bash Not tainted 2.6.36-rc7-mm1+ #148
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81088b5b>] print_circular_bug+0xeb/0xf0
> [<ffffffff8108b5ba>] __lock_acquire+0x155a/0x1600
> [<ffffffff8103a1f9>] ? finish_task_switch+0x79/0xe0
> [<ffffffff815049a9>] ? schedule+0x419/0xa80
> [<ffffffff8108b70a>] lock_acquire+0xaa/0x140
> [<ffffffff81079339>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x69/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81506601>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
> [<ffffffff81079339>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x69/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81079339>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x69/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81110f06>] ? next_online_pgdat+0x26/0x50
> [<ffffffff810793a6>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
> [<ffffffff813afbfb>] memory_notify+0x1b/0x20
> [<ffffffff81141f1e>] remove_memory+0x56e/0x5f0
> [<ffffffff8108ba98>] ? lock_release_non_nested+0x2f8/0x3a0
> [<ffffffff813af53d>] memory_block_change_state+0xfd/0x1a0
> [<ffffffff8111705c>] ? might_fault+0x5c/0xb0
> [<ffffffff813afd62>] store_mem_state+0xe2/0xf0
> [<ffffffff811bc0fd>] ? sysfs_write_file+0xcd/0x170
> [<ffffffff813a0bb0>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff811bc116>] sysfs_write_file+0xe6/0x170
> [<ffffffff8114f398>] vfs_write+0xc8/0x190
> [<ffffffff8114fc14>] sys_write+0x54/0x90
> [<ffffffff810028b2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
--
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