linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.3] memcg: fix deadlock by inverting lrucare nesting

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: <20120229190046.GC1673@cmpxchg.org>
Date:	Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:00:46 +0100
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.3] memcg: fix deadlock by inverting lrucare nesting

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:25:02PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> We have forgotten the rules of lock nesting: the irq-safe ones must be
> taken inside the non-irq-safe ones, otherwise we are open to deadlock:
> 
> CPU0                          CPU1
> ----                          ----
> lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock);
>                               local_irq_disable();
>                               lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock);
>                               lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock);
> 
> To check a different locking issue, I happened to add a spin_lock to
> memcg's bit_spin_lock in lock_page_cgroup(), and lockdep very quickly
> complained about __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare() (on CPU1 above).
> 
> So delete __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare(), passing a bool lrucare
> to __mem_cgroup_commit_charge() instead, taking zone->lru_lock under
> lock_page_cgroup() in the lrucare case.
> 
> The original was using spin_lock_irqsave, but we'd be in more trouble
> if it were ever called at interrupt time: unconditional _irq is enough.
> And ClearPageLRU before del from lru, SetPageLRU before add to lru: no
> strong reason, but that is the ordering used consistently elsewhere.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
--
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/