[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217174818.GP23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:48:18 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Subject: udf deadlock (was Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:49:22AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Folks, this is not a false positive and it has nothing to do with misannotation
> for directories. Deadlock is real; I have no idea WTF do we what ->i_mutex
> held over that area in hugetlbfs ->mmap(), but doing that is really, really
> wrong, whatever the reason.
Arrrrgh... Some grepping around has uncovered another deadlock on
i_mutex/mmap_sem and this one is not hard to hit at all.
Thread A:
opens file on UDF (O_RDWR open)
does big, fat write() to it
Thread B:
opens the same file (also O_RDWR)
mmaps it
closes
does munmap()
and there we are - munmap() will end up closing the second struct file,
call udf_release_file() and we are hitting ->i_mutex while under
->mmap_sem. Blocking on it, actually, since generic_file_aio_write()
in the first thread is holding ->i_mutex. And as soon as thread A gets
around to faulting the next piece of data in, well... To widen the
window a lot, mmap something large sitting on NFS and do write() from
that mmapped area. Race window as wide as one could ask for...
What happens there is prealloc discard on close; do we even want ->i_mutex
there these days? Note that there's also
down_write(&UDF_I(inode)->i_data_sem);
in udf_release_file()...
--
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