linux-kernel - Re: vfs-scale, chroot

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: <AANLkTinLDN3LGahTqRrLvNShAyMSs_Q_Gjhw=oCGAsby@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:06:44 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vfs-scale, chroot

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:47 AM, J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Hello Nick,
>
> I've got a crash around d_lock.
>
> # mount -t nfs host:/dir /nfs
> # chroot /nfs
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, chroot/2524
>  lock: ffff88001d106880, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: chroot/2524, .owner_cpu: 1
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff8128ca52>] ? spin_bug+0xa2/0xf0
>  [<ffffffff8128cd53>] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x193/0x1b0
>  [<ffffffff814eaa5e>] ? _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x4e/0x60
>  [<ffffffff81137aef>] ? nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu+0xcf/0x1b0
>  [<ffffffff814eaab3>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x43/0x50
>  [<ffffffff81137aef>] ? nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu+0xcf/0x1b0
>  [<ffffffff81137c1b>] ? d_revalidate+0x4b/0x70
>  [<ffffffff81139a75>] ? link_path_walk+0x655/0x1210
>  [<ffffffff81138702>] ? path_init_rcu+0x1c2/0x370
>  [<ffffffff811387e5>] ? path_init_rcu+0x2a5/0x370
>  [<ffffffff81138702>] ? path_init_rcu+0x1c2/0x370
>  [<ffffffff811059b3>] ? might_fault+0x53/0xb0
>  [<ffffffff8113a9fe>] ? do_path_lookup+0x8e/0x1d0
>  [<ffffffff8113b936>] ? user_path_at+0xa6/0xe0
>  [<ffffffff8114c167>] ? vfsmount_lock_local_unlock+0x77/0x90
>  [<ffffffff814ebab9>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
>  [<ffffffff81090b15>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x145/0x190
>  [<ffffffff8112841e>] ? sys_chdir+0x2e/0x90
>  [<ffffffff8100bfd2>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> It looks like nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu() is trying spin_lock() twice
> for the same dentry when parent == dentry.
>
> - NFS ->d_revalidate() returns -ECHILD for LOOKUP_RCU
> - VFS d_revalidate() will try ->d_revalidate() again after dropping
>  LOOKUP_RCU by nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu().
> - nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu() calls
>        spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
>        spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
> - it may happen on all fs which specifies FS_REVAL_DOT
>
> If we have a function like below, it may be useful.
> But are there so many cases like this problem?
> If it is not so many, then the fix will be adding several
> "if (!IS_ROOT(dentry)" into nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu(), I think.

Hey, thanks for the report and the excellent debugging work! I agree
with your analysis. I'll prepare a patch for it shortly.

Thanks,
Nick
--
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/