linux-kernel - Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init

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]
Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:51:50 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, ngupta@...are.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: zram: lockdep spew for zram->init_lock

Hello,

On (03/03/14 07:30), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> I'm not in office now and I would be off in this week, maybe
> so I don't have source code on top of Sergey's recent change
> but it seems below code has same problem.
> 
> Pz, Sergey or Jerome Could you confirm it instead of me?
> 
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:32:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:56:29 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Sasha reported following below lockdep spew of zram.
> > > 
> > > It was introduced by [1] in recent linux-next but it's false positive
> > > because zram_meta_alloc with down_write(init_lock) couldn't be called
> > > during zram is working as swap device so we could annotate the lock.
> > > 
> > > But I don't think it's worthy because it would make greate lockdep
> > > less effective. Instead, move zram_meta_alloc out of the lock as good
> > > old day so we could do unnecessary allocation/free of zram_meta for
> > > initialied device as Sergey claimed in [1] but it wouldn't be common
> > > and be harmful if someone might do it. Rather than, I'd like to respect
> > > lockdep which is great tool to prevent upcoming subtle bugs.
> > > 
> > > [1] zram: delete zram_init_device
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > @@ -537,26 +537,27 @@ static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > >  		struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t len)
> > >  {
> > >  	u64 disksize;
> > > +	struct zram_meta *meta;
> > >  	struct zram *zram = dev_to_zram(dev);
> > >  
> > >  	disksize = memparse(buf, NULL);
> > >  	if (!disksize)
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > >  
> > > +	disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> > > +	meta = zram_meta_alloc(disksize);
> > > +	if (!meta)
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > >  	down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > >  	if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > +		zram_meta_free(meta);
> > >  		up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > >  		pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > >  		return -EBUSY;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> > > -	zram->meta = zram_meta_alloc(disksize);
> > > -	if (!zram->meta) {
> > > -		up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > > -	}
> > > -
> > > +	zram->meta = meta;
> > >  	zram->disksize = disksize;
> > >  	set_capacity(zram->disk, zram->disksize >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> > >  	up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > 
> > When applying zram-use-zcomp-compressing-backends.patch on top of this
> > we get a bit of a mess, and simple conflict resolution results in a
> > leak.
> > 
> > disksize_store() was one of those nasty functions which does multiple
> > "return" statements after performing locking and resource allocation. 
> > As usual, this led to a resource leak.  Remember folks, "return" is a
> > goto in disguise.
> > 
> > 
> > Here's what I ended up with.  Please review.
> > 
> > static ssize_t disksize_store(struct device *dev,
> > 		struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t len)
> > {
> > 	u64 disksize;
> > 	struct zram_meta *meta;
> > 	struct zram *zram = dev_to_zram(dev);
> > 	int err;
> > 
> > 	disksize = memparse(buf, NULL);
> > 	if (!disksize)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > 	disksize = PAGE_ALIGN(disksize);
> > 	meta = zram_meta_alloc(disksize);
> > 	if (!meta)
> > 		return -ENOMEM;
> > 
> > 	down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > 	if (init_done(zram)) {
> > 		pr_info("Cannot change disksize for initialized device\n");
> > 		err = -EBUSY;
> > 		goto out_free_meta;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	zram->comp = zcomp_create(default_compressor);
> 
> AFAIR, zcomp_create try to allocate memory with GFP_KERNEL so it could
> make a same problem. If so, let's allocate it out of the lock.
> 
> Please check it.
> 

good catch. you're right, zcomp allocation use GPF_KERNEL.
since Minchan is out of the office this week should I send
out a patch (combined Minchan's original patch + Andrew's
rework) or, Andrew, you will handle it?

	-ss

> > 	if (!zram->comp) {
> > 		pr_info("Cannot initialise %s compressing backend\n",
> > 				default_compressor);
> > 		err = -EINVAL;
> > 		goto out_free_meta;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	zram->meta = meta;
> > 	zram->disksize = disksize;
> > 	set_capacity(zram->disk, zram->disksize >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> > 	up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > 
> > 	return len;
> > 
> > out_free_meta:
> > 	up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > 	zram_meta_free(meta);
> > 	return err;
> > }
> > 
> 
--
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/