| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120304111327.GA9255@localhost> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:13:27 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] writeback: introduce the pageout work On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:27:45PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > [correct email addresses for Artem and Adrian] > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 09:55:58PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:57:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 18:39:51 +0800 > > > Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > And I agree it's unlikely but given enough time and people, I > > > > > believe someone finds a way to (inadvertedly) trigger this. > > > > > > > > Right. The pageout works could add lots more iput() to the flusher > > > > and turn some hidden statistical impossible bugs into real ones. > > > > > > > > Fortunately the "flusher deadlocks itself" case is easy to detect and > > > > prevent as illustrated in another email. > > > > > > It would be a heck of a lot safer and saner to avoid the iput(). We > > > know how to do this, so why not do it? > > > > My concern about the page lock is, it costs more code and sounds like > > hacking around something. It seems we (including me) have been trying > > to shun away from the iput() problem. Since it's unlikely we are to > > get rid of the already existing iput() calls from the flusher context, > > why not face the problem, sort it out and use it with confident in new > > code? > > > > Let me try it now. The only scheme iput() can deadlock the flusher is > > for the iput() path to come back to queue some work and wait for it. > > Here are the exhaust list of the queue+wait paths: > > writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle Sorry the above function is actually called from all over btrfs. ext4 uses the much more heavy weight writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(). I'm not sure if ext4/ubifs developers are fully aware that these functions may take seconds or even dozens of seconds to complete and show up as long delays to the users, because they write and wait ALL dirty pages on the superblock. Even w/o the iput() deadlock problem, it's still questionable to start and wait for such big writeback works from fs code. If these waits could be turned into congestion_wait() style throttling, it should not only completely remove the possibility of iput() deadlock, but also make the delays much smaller. congestion_wait() is just an example and may not be a good fit, but the *_if_idle thing does indicate that the calling ext4/btrfs sites are pretty flexible (or careless) about the exact policy used. Thanks, Fengguang > > ext4_nonda_switch > > ext4_page_mkwrite # from page fault > > ext4_da_write_begin # from user writes > > > > writeback_inodes_sb_nr > > quotactl syscall # from syscall > > __sync_filesystem # from sync/umount > > shrink_liability # ubifs > > make_free_space > > ubifs_budget_space # from all over ubifs: > > > > 2 274 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_create>> > > 3 531 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_link>> > > 4 586 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_unlink>> > > 5 675 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_rmdir>> > > 6 731 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_mkdir>> > > 7 803 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_mknod>> > > 8 871 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_symlink>> > > 9 1006 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_rename>> > > 10 1009 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/dir.c <<ubifs_rename>> > > 11 246 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<write_begin_slow>> > > 12 388 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<allocate_budget>> > > 13 1125 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<do_truncation>> <===== deadlockable > > 14 1217 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<do_setattr>> > > 15 1381 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<update_mctime>> > > 16 1486 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<ubifs_vm_page_mkwrite>> > > 17 110 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/ioctl.c <<setflags>> > > 19 122 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/xattr.c <<create_xattr>> > > 20 201 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/xattr.c <<change_xattr>> > > 21 494 /c/linux/fs/ubifs/xattr.c <<remove_xattr>> > > > > It seems they are all safe except for ubifs. ubifs may actually > > deadlock from the above do_truncation() caller. However it should be > > Sorry that do_truncation() is actually called from ubifs_setattr() > which is not related to iput(). > > Are there other possibilities for iput() to call into the above list > of ubifs functions, then start writeback work and wait for it which > will deadlock the flusher? ubifs_unlink() and perhaps remove_xattr()? > > > fixable because the ubifs call for writeback_inodes_sb_nr() sounds > > very brute force writeback and wait and there may well be better way > > out. > > > > CCing ubifs developers for possible thoughts.. > > > > Thanks, > > Fengguang > > > > PS. I'll be on travel in the following week and won't have much time > > for replying emails. Sorry about that. -- 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