| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CADT32eJqh3EN=SdQ0CtLEmbnXFi-3=-MsddUv0CatKmGHL_7hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:57:07 -0500
From: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cifs <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, uobergfe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cifs: Fix possible deadlock with cifs and work queues
Just a thought, although leasing code does not cause such deadlocks with rwsems,
perhaps leasing and oplock code can reside on one workqueue!
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> We just had a customer report a deadlock in their 3.8-rt kernel.
> Looking into this, it is very possible to have the same deadlock in
> mainline in Linus's tree as it stands today.
>
> It is much easier to deadlock in the -rt kernel because reader locks
> are serialized, where a down_read() can block another down_read(). But
> because rwsems are fair locks, if a writer is waiting, a new reader
> will then block. This means that if it is possible for a reader to
> deadlock another reader, this can happen if a write comes along and
> blocks on a current reader. That will prevent another reader from
> running, and if that new reader requires to wake up a reader that owns
> the lock, you have your deadlock.
>
> Here's the situation with CIFS and workqueues:
>
> The cifs system has several workqueues used in file.c and other places.
> One of them is used for completion of a read and to release the
> page_lock which wakes up the reader. There are several other workqueues
> that do various other tasks.
>
> A holder of the reader lock can sleep on a page_lock() and expect the
> reader workqueue to wake it up (page_unlock()). The reader workqueue
> takes no locks so this does not seem to be a problem (but it is).
>
> The other workqueues can take the rwsem for read or for write. But our
> issue that we tripped over was that it grabs it for read (remember in
> -rt readers are serialized). But this can also happen if a separate
> writer is waiting on the lock as that would cause a reader to block on
> another reader too.
>
> All the workqueue callbacks are executed on the same workqueue:
>
> queue_work(cifsiod_wq, &rdata->work);
> [...]
> queue_work(cifsiod_wq, &cfile->oplock_break);
>
> Now if the reader workqueue callback is queued after one of these
> workqueues that can take the rwsem, we can hit a deadlock. The
> workqueue code looks to be able to prevent deadlocks of these kinds,
> but I do not totally understand the workqueue scheduled work structure
> and perhaps if the kworker thread structure blocks hard it wont move
> works around.
>
> Here's what we see:
>
> rdata->work is scheduled after cfile->oplock_break
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
>
> do_sync_read()
> cifs_strict_readv()
> down_read(cinode->lock_sem);
> generic_file_aio_read()
> __lock_page_killable()
> __wait_on_bit_lock()
>
> * BLOCKED *
>
> process_one_work()
> cifs_oplock_break()
> cifs_has_mand_locks()
> down_read(cinode->lock_sem);
>
> * BLOCKED *
>
> [ note, cifs_oplock_break() can
> also call cifs_push_locks which takes
> the lock with down_write() ]
>
> The key to remember is that the work to wake up the lock owner is queued
> behind the oplock work which is blocked on the same lock.
>
> We noticed that the rdata->work was queued to run under the same
> workqueue task and this work is to wake up the owner of the semaphore.
> But because the workqueue task is blocked waiting on that lock, it will
> never wake it up.
>
> By adding another workqueue that runs all the work that might take a mutex
> we should be able to avoid this deadlock.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140319151252.16ed3ac6@gandalf.local.home
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> ---
> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 1 +
> fs/cifs/misc.c | 2 +-
> fs/cifs/smb2misc.c | 6 +++---
> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> index 849f613..b0761c8 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> @@ -86,6 +86,12 @@ extern mempool_t *cifs_req_poolp;
> extern mempool_t *cifs_mid_poolp;
>
> struct workqueue_struct *cifsiod_wq;
> +/*
> + * The oplock workqueue must be separate to prevent it from blocking
> + * other work that is queued. Work that requires to grab mutex locks
> + * must use the 'l' version.
> + */
> +struct workqueue_struct *cifsiold_wq;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_SMB2
> __u8 cifs_client_guid[SMB2_CLIENT_GUID_SIZE];
> @@ -1199,9 +1205,15 @@ init_cifs(void)
> goto out_clean_proc;
> }
>
> + cifsiold_wq = alloc_workqueue("cifsiold", WQ_FREEZABLE|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
> + if (!cifsiold_wq) {
> + rc = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_destroy_wq;
> + }
> +
> rc = cifs_fscache_register();
> if (rc)
> - goto out_destroy_wq;
> + goto out_destroy_rwq;
>
> rc = cifs_init_inodecache();
> if (rc)
> @@ -1249,6 +1261,8 @@ out_destroy_inodecache:
> cifs_destroy_inodecache();
> out_unreg_fscache:
> cifs_fscache_unregister();
> +out_destroy_rwq:
> + destroy_workqueue(cifsiold_wq);
> out_destroy_wq:
> destroy_workqueue(cifsiod_wq);
> out_clean_proc:
> @@ -1273,6 +1287,7 @@ exit_cifs(void)
> cifs_destroy_inodecache();
> cifs_fscache_unregister();
> destroy_workqueue(cifsiod_wq);
> + destroy_workqueue(cifsiold_wq);
> cifs_proc_clean();
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h b/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
> index c0f3718..6c2b5c8 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsglob.h
> @@ -1561,6 +1561,7 @@ void cifs_oplock_break(struct work_struct *work);
>
> extern const struct slow_work_ops cifs_oplock_break_ops;
> extern struct workqueue_struct *cifsiod_wq;
> +extern struct workqueue_struct *cifsiold_wq;
>
> extern mempool_t *cifs_mid_poolp;
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/misc.c b/fs/cifs/misc.c
> index 2f9f379..1bc94e9 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/misc.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/misc.c
> @@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ is_valid_oplock_break(char *buffer, struct TCP_Server_Info *srv)
>
> cifs_set_oplock_level(pCifsInode,
> pSMB->OplockLevel ? OPLOCK_READ : 0);
> - queue_work(cifsiod_wq,
> + queue_work(cifsiold_wq,
> &netfile->oplock_break);
> netfile->oplock_break_cancelled = false;
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2misc.c b/fs/cifs/smb2misc.c
> index fb39662..ffea93f 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2misc.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2misc.c
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ smb2_tcon_has_lease(struct cifs_tcon *tcon, struct smb2_lease_break *rsp,
> else
> cfile->oplock_break_cancelled = true;
>
> - queue_work(cifsiod_wq, &cfile->oplock_break);
> + queue_work(cifsiold_wq, &cfile->oplock_break);
> kfree(lw);
> return true;
> }
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ smb2_tcon_has_lease(struct cifs_tcon *tcon, struct smb2_lease_break *rsp,
> memcpy(lw->lease_key, open->lease_key,
> SMB2_LEASE_KEY_SIZE);
> lw->tlink = cifs_get_tlink(open->tlink);
> - queue_work(cifsiod_wq, &lw->lease_break);
> + queue_work(cifsiold_wq, &lw->lease_break);
> }
>
> cifs_dbg(FYI, "found in the pending open list\n");
> @@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ smb2_is_valid_oplock_break(char *buffer, struct TCP_Server_Info *server)
> rsp->OplockLevel ? SMB2_OPLOCK_LEVEL_II : 0,
> 0, NULL);
>
> - queue_work(cifsiod_wq, &cfile->oplock_break);
> + queue_work(cifsiold_wq, &cfile->oplock_break);
>
> spin_unlock(&cifs_file_list_lock);
> spin_unlock(&cifs_tcp_ses_lock);
> --
> 1.8.1.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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