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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <50EF8614.3050408@windriver.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:25:08 +0800
From:	Fan Du <fan.du@...driver.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 2013年01月11日 06:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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()?

IMHO, write_seqcount_begin/write_seqcount_end are often wrapped by mutex,
this gives higher priority task a chance to sleep, and then lower priority task
get cpu to unlock, so avoid the problematic scenario this patch describing.

But in i_size_write case, I could only find disable preempt a good choice before
someone else has better idea :)

>
> 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?
>

-- 
浮沉随浪只记今朝笑

--fan
--
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/