linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping

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: <20110120124043.GA4347@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:40:43 -0500
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hughd@...gle.com,
	gurudas.pai@...cle.com, lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same
 inode

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> 
> Running a fuse filesystem with multiple open()'s in parallel can
> trigger a "kernel BUG at mm/truncate.c:475"
> 
> The reason is, unmap_mapping_range() is not prepared for more than
> one concurrent invocation per inode.  For example:
> 
>   thread1: going through a big range, stops in the middle of a vma and
>      stores the restart address in vm_truncate_count.
> 
>   thread2: comes in with a small (e.g. single page) unmap request on
>      the same vma, somewhere before restart_address, finds that the
>      vma was already unmapped up to the restart address and happily
>      returns without doing anything.
> 
> Another scenario would be two big unmap requests, both having to
> restart the unmapping and each one setting vm_truncate_count to its
> own value.  This could go on forever without any of them being able to
> finish.
> 
> Truncate and hole punching already serialize with i_mutex.  Other
> callers of unmap_mapping_range() do not, and it's difficult to get
> i_mutex protection for all callers.  In particular ->d_revalidate(),
> which calls invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in fuse, may be called
> with or without i_mutex.


Which I think is mostly a fuse problem.  I really hate bloating the
generic inode (into which the address_space is embedded) with another
mutex for deficits in rather special case filesystems. 

--
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/