| 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: <20140416062520.GG15995@dastard> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] VFS: use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL in __d_alloc. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > __d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held, so it is safer to > use GFP_NOFS. > > lockdep reports this can deadlock when loop-back NFS is in use, > as nfsd may be required to write out for reclaim, and nfsd certainly > takes i_mutex. But not the same i_mutex as is currently held. To me, this seems like a false positive? If you are holding the i_mutex on an inode, then you have a reference to the inode and hence memory reclaim won't ever take the i_mutex on that inode. FWIW, this sort of false positive was a long stabding problem for XFS - we managed to get rid of most of the false positives like this by ensuring that only the ilock is taken within memory reclaim and memory reclaim can't be entered while we hold the ilock. You can't do that with the i_mutex, though.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- 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