[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:44:52 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kernfs: possible deadlock between of->mutex and mmap_sem
On 03/03/2014 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 08:14:45PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've stumbled on the following while fuzzing with trinity inside a
>> KVM tools running the latest -next kernel.
>>
>> We deal with files that have an mmap op by giving them a different
>> locking class than the files which don't due to mmap_sem nesting
>> being different for those files.
>>
>> We assume that for mmap supporting files, of->mutex will be nested
>> inside mm->mmap_sem. However, this is not always the case. Consider
>> the following:
>>
>> kernfs_fop_write()
>> copy_from_user()
>> might_fault()
>>
>> might_fault() suggests that we may lock mm->mmap_sem, which causes a
>> reverse lock nesting of mm->mmap_sem inside of of->mutex.
>>
>> I'll send a patch to fix it some time next week unless someone beats me to it :)
>
> How are you planning to fix it? Prolly the right thing to do would be
> caching atomic_write_len in open_file and copy data before grabbing
> any locks.
I've actually didn't have a plan when I wrote that, was just planning on putting effort into it.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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