| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:22:48 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: blk, mm: lockdep irq lock inversion in linux-next
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:50:07 +0200
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity within a KVM tools guest on a linux-next kernel, I
> got the lockdep warning at the bottom of this mail.
>
> I've tried figuring out where it was introduced, but haven't found any sign that
> any of the code in that area changed recently, so I'm probably missing something...
>
>
> [ 157.966399] =========================================================
> [ 157.968523] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> [ 157.970029] 3.6.0-rc5-next-20120914-sasha-00001-g802bf6c-dirty #340 Tainted: G W
> [ 157.970029] ---------------------------------------------------------
> [ 157.970029] trinity-child38/6642 just changed the state of lock:
> [ 157.970029] (&(&mapping->tree_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8120cafc>]
> invalidate_inode_pages2_range+0x20c/0x3c0
> [ 157.970029] but this lock was taken by another, SOFTIRQ-safe lock in the past:
> [ 157.970029] (&(&new->queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}
>
> [snippage]
gack, what a mess. Thanks for the report. AFAICT, what has happened is:
invalidate_complete_page2()
->spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
->clear_page_mlock()
__clear_page_mlock()
->isolate_lru_page()
->spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock)
->spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock)
whoops. isolate_lru_page() just enabled local interrupts while we're
holding ->tree_lock, which is supposed to be an irq-save lock. And in
a rather obscure way, lockdep caught it.
Problem is, I cannot find any recent change which might have triggered
this.
I don't know how repeatable this is for you (not very at all, I
suspect). This?
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: mm: isolate_lru_page(): don't enable local interrupts
isolate_lru_page() is called with local interrupts disabled, via
invalidate_complete_page2()
->spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
->clear_page_mlock()
__clear_page_mlock()
->isolate_lru_page()
so it should not unconditionally enable local interrupts.
Sasha hit a lockdep warning when running Trinity as a result of this.
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~mm-isolate_lru_page-dont-enable-local-interrupts mm/vmscan.c
--- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-isolate_lru_page-dont-enable-local-interrupts
+++ a/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1161,8 +1161,9 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
if (PageLRU(page)) {
struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
struct lruvec *lruvec;
+ unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, zone);
if (PageLRU(page)) {
int lru = page_lru(page);
@@ -1171,7 +1172,7 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
ret = 0;
}
- spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
}
return ret;
}
_
--
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