linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 13/14] locks: skip deadlock detection on FL_FILE

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: <1389726414-30990-14-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:06:53 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v6 13/14] locks: skip deadlock detection on FL_FILE_PVT locks

It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
detection also tends to be rather expensive so just skip it for
these sorts of locks.

Also, add a FIXME comment about adding more limited deadlock detection
that just applies to ro -> rw upgrades, per Andy's request.

Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index f8cd6d7..8c5bc07 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
 	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_block));
 	waiter->fl_next = blocker;
 	list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_block);
-	if (IS_POSIX(blocker))
+	if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_FILE_PVT(blocker))
 		locks_insert_global_blocked(waiter);
 }
 
@@ -757,8 +757,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(posix_test_lock);
  * Note: the above assumption may not be true when handling lock
  * requests from a broken NFS client. It may also fail in the presence
  * of tasks (such as posix threads) sharing the same open file table.
- *
  * To handle those cases, we just bail out after a few iterations.
+ *
+ * For FL_FILE_PVT locks, the owner is the filp, not the files_struct.
+ * Because the owner is not even nominally tied to a thread of
+ * execution, the deadlock detection below can't reasonably work well. Just
+ * skip it for those.
+ *
+ * In principle, we could do a more limited deadlock detection on FL_FILE_PVT
+ * locks that just checks for the case where two tasks are attempting to
+ * upgrade from read to write locks on the same inode.
  */
 
 #define MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS 10
@@ -781,6 +789,13 @@ static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
 {
 	int i = 0;
 
+	/*
+	 * This deadlock detector can't reasonably detect deadlocks with
+	 * FL_FILE_PVT locks, since they aren't owned by a process, per-se.
+	 */
+	if (IS_FILE_PVT(caller_fl))
+		return 0;
+
 	while ((block_fl = what_owner_is_waiting_for(block_fl))) {
 		if (i++ > MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS)
 			return 0;
-- 
1.8.4.2

--
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/