[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130507060730.03364687@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 06:07:30 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] freezer: add unsafe versions of freezable
helpers for CIFS
On Mon, 6 May 2013 16:50:07 -0700
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com> wrote:
> CIFS calls wait_event_freezekillable_unsafe with a VFS lock held,
> which is unsafe and will cause lockdep warnings when 6aa9707
> "lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time" is reapplied
> (it was reverted in dbf520a). CIFS shouldn't be doing this, but
> it has long-running syscalls that must hold a lock but also
> shouldn't block suspend. Until CIFS freeze handling is rewritten
> to use a signal to exit out of the critical section, add a new
> wait_event_freezekillable_unsafe helper that will not run the
> lockdep test when 6aa9707 is reapplied, and call it from CIFS.
>
> In practice the likley result of holding the lock while freezing
> is that a second task blocked on the lock will never freeze,
> aborting suspend, but it is possible to manufacture a case using
> the cgroup freezer, the lock, and the suspend freezer to create
> a deadlock. Silencing the lockdep warning here will allow
> problems to be found in other drivers that may have a more
> serious deadlock risk, and prevent new problems from being added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
> ---
> include/linux/freezer.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/freezer.h b/include/linux/freezer.h
> index 5b31e21c..d3c038e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/freezer.h
> +++ b/include/linux/freezer.h
> @@ -212,6 +212,16 @@ static inline bool freezer_should_skip(struct task_struct *p)
> __retval; \
> })
>
> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> +#define wait_event_freezekillable_unsafe(wq, condition) \
> +({ \
> + int __retval; \
> + freezer_do_not_count(); \
> + __retval = wait_event_killable(wq, (condition)); \
> + freezer_count_unsafe(); \
> + __retval; \
> +})
> +
> #define wait_event_freezable(wq, condition) \
> ({ \
> int __retval; \
> @@ -277,6 +287,9 @@ static inline void set_freezable(void) {}
> #define wait_event_freezekillable(wq, condition) \
> wait_event_killable(wq, condition)
>
> +#define wait_event_freezekillable_unsafe(wq, condition) \
> + wait_event_killable(wq, condition)
> +
> #endif /* !CONFIG_FREEZER */
>
> #endif /* FREEZER_H_INCLUDED */
I think you also need to convert wait_for_response in the cifs code to
use this helper. While it's a pretty straightforward change, you should
probably cc linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org as well.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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