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]
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:05:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...nel.org,
	cl@...ux.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] slub: Do not assert not having lock in removing freed
 partial

On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Vladimir reported the following issue:
> 
> Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
> remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
> called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
> rule, leading to a warning:
> 
>   WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536 __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
>   Modules linked in:
>   CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G        W    3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
>   Hardware name:
>    0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600
>    0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000
>    ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0
>   Call Trace:
>    [<ffffffff816d9583>] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
>    [<ffffffff8107c107>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
>    [<ffffffff8107c145>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>    [<ffffffff811c7fe2>] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
>    [<ffffffff811908d3>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
>    [<ffffffffa013a123>] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
>    [<ffffffffa0192b54>] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
>    [<ffffffff811036fa>] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
>    [<ffffffff816dfcd8>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
>    [<ffffffff810d2125>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
>    [<ffffffff81359efe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>    [<ffffffff816e8539>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> 
> His solution was to add a spinlock in order to quiet lockdep. Although
> there would be no contention to adding the lock, that lock also
> requires disabling of interrupts which will have a larger impact on the
> system.
> 
> Instead of adding a spinlock to a location where it is not needed for
> lockdep, make a __remove_partial() function that does not test if
> the list_lock is held, as no one should have it due to it being freed.
> 
> Also added a __add_partial() function that does not do the lock validation
> either, as it is not needed for the creation of the cache.
> 
> Suggested-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Reported-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>

Thanks Steven!
--
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