linux-kernel - Re: xfs: possible deadlock warning

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: <5386AABD.5070708@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 May 2014 11:34:21 +0800
From:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	<xfs@....sgi.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfs: possible deadlock warning

Hi Dave,

On 05/28/2014 02:00 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 01:19:16PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When running the latest Linus' tree, the following possible deadlock warning occurs.
> 
> false positive. There isn't a deadlock between inode locks on
> different filesystems. i.e. there is no dependency between shmem
> inodes and xfs inodes, nor on their security contexts.  Nor can you
> take a page fault on a directory inode, which is the XFS inode lock
> class it's complaining about.

If it's really a noisy, can we avoid this?
 
Thanks,
Gu

> 
> Fundamentally, the problem here is shmem instantiating a new inode
> with the mmap_sem held. That's just plain wrong...

Agree, it's better to prepare the file before going into the protection region. 

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.


--
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/