linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

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: <20120308214425.GA23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:44:25 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, jboyer@...hat.com,
	tyhicks@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:02:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This fix the below lockdep warning
> 
> OK, what's going on here.

Deadlock in hugetlbfs mmap getting misreported.

One last time: ->mmap_sem nests inside ->i_mutex.  Both for regular
files and for directories.  Always had.

For directories there's copy_to_user() from ->readdir() done under ->i_mutex.
For regular files there's copy_from_user() from ->write(), usually done under
->i_mutex.  On hugetlbfs there's copy_to_user() from ->read() done under
->i_mutex.

It had not changed at all.  Lockdep sees both call chains; the only question
is which chain is seen first.  And usually reading a directory happens earlier
in the boot than writing into a file.  That's all there is to it.

Unfortunately, the fact that call chain being reported is obviously about
directories leads to false hopes that deadlock doesn't exist - mmap()
obviously can't happen to a directory inode, so people hope that it's a
false positive.  It isn't.

Patch separating directory and non-directory ->i_mutex into different classes
went in at some point, precisely due to those hopes.  It had a braino that
made it useless.  Fix for that braino had been posted and sits my queue; I'll
push it to Linus along with other pending fixes tonight.

It will *not* eliminate the (very real) deadlock.  It might make the warning
go away, but only if read() on hugetlbfs files doesn't happen during boot.

I suspect that they right thing would be to have a way to set explicit
nesting rules, not tied to speficic call trace.  I hadn't looked into
lockdep guts, so no idea how much will that hurt to implement.  As in
lockdep_lock_nests(class_outer, class_inner, message), acting as if
there had been a call chain where class_outer had been taken before
class_inner, with message going in place of call trace for that chain
when we run into a conflict...
--
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/