linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Disable preempt when acquire i_size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130110143813.1ba2b4fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:38:13 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
Cc:	<matthew@....cx>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Disable preempt when acquire i_size_seqcount write
 lock

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:34:19 +0800
Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com> wrote:

> Two rt tasks bind to one CPU core.
> 
> The higher priority rt task A preempts a lower priority rt task B which
> has already taken the write seq lock, and then the higher priority
> rt task A try to acquire read seq lock, it's doomed to lockup.
> 
> rt task A with lower priority: call write
> i_size_write                                        rt task B with higher priority: call sync, and preempt task A
>   write_seqcount_begin(&inode->i_size_seqcount);    i_size_read  
>   inode->i_size = i_size;                             read_seqcount_begin <-- lockup here... 
> 

Ouch.

And even if the preemping task is preemptible, it will spend an entire
timeslice pointlessly spinning, which isn't very good.

> So disable preempt when acquiring every i_size_seqcount *write* lock will
> cure the problem.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -758,9 +758,11 @@ static inline loff_t i_size_read(const struct inode *inode)
>  static inline void i_size_write(struct inode *inode, loff_t i_size)
>  {
>  #if BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	write_seqcount_begin(&inode->i_size_seqcount);
>  	inode->i_size = i_size;
>  	write_seqcount_end(&inode->i_size_seqcount);
> +	preempt_enable();
>  #elif BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)
>  	preempt_disable();
>  	inode->i_size = i_size;

afacit all write_seqcount_begin()/read_seqretry() sites are vulnerable
to this problem.  Would it not be better to do the preempt_disable() in
write_seqcount_begin()?


Possible problems:

- mm/filemap_xip.c does disk I/O under write_seqcount_begin().

- dev_change_name() does GFP_KERNEL allocations under write_seqcount_begin()

- I didn't review u64_stats_update_begin() callers.

But I think calling schedule() under preempt_disable() is OK anyway?
--
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/