linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/19] VFS: use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL in __d

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]

Message-ID: <20140416164941.37587da6@notabene.brown>
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:49:41 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
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, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> 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.

I'm not sure this is a false positive.
You can call __d_alloc when creating a file and so are holding i_mutex on the
directory.
nfsd might also want to access that directory.

If there was only 1 nfsd thread, it would need to get i_mutex and do it's
thing before replying to that request and so before it could handle the
COMMIT which __d_alloc is waiting for.

Obviously we would normally have multiple nfsd threads but if they were all
blocked on an i_mutex which itself was blocked on nfs_release_page which was
waiting for an nfsd thread to handling its COMMIT request, this could be a
real deadlock.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)