[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120308214951.GB23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:49:52 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, jboyer@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:40:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> OK, thanks, yup. Taking i_mutex in file_operations.mmap() is wrong.
... or in .release() (munmap() does fput() under mmap_sem).
> Is hugetlbfs actually deadlockable because of this, or is it the case
> that the i_mutex->mmap_sem ordering happens to never happen for this
> filesystem?
Yes, it is. Look at read(2) on hugetlbfs; it copies userland data
while holding ->i_mutex. So we have
read(2):
mutex_lock(&A)
down_read(&B)
mmap(2):
down_write(&B);
mutex_lock(&A);
which is an obvious deadlock.
> So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap().
IIRC, you have a patch in your tree doing just 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