linux-kernel - Re: 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex deadlock report for absolutely free!

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: <20120713104741.GF30128@shiny>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:47:41 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex
 deadlock report for absolutely free!

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 04:26:26AM -0600, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 11:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: 
> > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 15:31 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: 
> > > > > Bingo, that makes it more likely that this is caused by copying w/o
> > > > > initializing the lock and then freeing the original structure.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A quick check for memcpy finds that __btrfs_close_devices() does a
> > > > > memcpy of btrfs_device structs w/o initializing the lock in the new
> > > > > copy, but I have no idea whether that's the place we are looking for.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a bunch Thomas.  I doubt I would have ever figured out that lala
> > > > land resulted from _copying_ a lock.  That's one I won't be forgetting
> > > > any time soon.  Box not only survived a few thousand xfstests 006 runs,
> > > > dbench seemed disinterested in deadlocking virgin 3.0-rt.
> > > 
> > > Cute. It think that the lock copying caused the deadlock problem as
> > > the list pointed to the wrong place, so we might have ended up with
> > > following down the wrong chain when walking the list as long as the
> > > original struct was not freed. That beast is freed under RCU so there
> > > could be a rcu read side critical section fiddling with the old lock
> > > and cause utter confusion.
> > 
> > Virgin 3.0-rt appears to really be solid.  But then it doesn't have
> > pesky rwlocks.
> 
> Ah. So 3.0 is not having those rwlock thingies. Bummer.
>  
> > > /me goes and writes a nastigram^W proper changelog
> > > 
> > > > btrfs still locks up in my enterprise kernel, so I suppose I had better
> > > > plug your fix into 3.4-rt and see what happens, and go beat hell out of
> > > > virgin 3.0-rt again to be sure box really really survives dbench.
> > > 
> > > A test against 3.4-rt sans enterprise mess might be nice as well.
> > 
> > Enterprise is 3.0-stable with um 555 btrfs patches (oh dear).
> > 
> > Virgin 3.4-rt and 3.2-rt deadlock gripe.  Enterprise doesn't gripe, but
> > deadlocks, so I have another adventure in my future even if I figure out
> > wth to do about rwlocks.
> 
> Hrmpf. /me goes to stare into fs/btrfs/ some more.

Please post the deadlocks here, I'll help ;)

-chris

--
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/