linux-kernel - Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [systemd-udevd:1667]

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: <20140529185201.GN18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 29 May 2014 19:52:01 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s!
 [systemd-udevd:1667]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 05:53:51PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:29:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, lock_parent() might be better off if in contended case it would not
> > > bother with rename_lock and did something like this:
> > > again:
> > 
> > Ack. I think that's much better.
> 
> Pushed to #for-linus (with dumb braino fixed - it's if (parent != dentry),
> not if (parent)).  I'll wait with folding it back into the commit that
> introduces lock_parent() until we get testing results...

Grrr...  Sadly, that's not good enough.  Leaking rcu_read_lock() on
success is trivial, but there's more serious problem: suppose dentries
involved get moved before we get to locking what we thought was parent.
We end up taking ->d_lock on two dentries that might be nowhere near each
other in the tree, with obvious nasty implications.  Would be _very_ hard
to reproduce ;-/

AFAICS, the following would be safe, but I'd really appreciate any extra
eyes on that sucker:

static inline struct dentry *lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
{
        struct dentry *parent = dentry->d_parent;
        if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
                return NULL;
        if (likely(spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)))
                return parent;
        spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
        rcu_read_lock();
again:
        parent = ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
        spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
        /*
         * We can't blindly lock dentry until we are sure
         * that we won't violate the locking order.
         * While parent->d_lock is not enough to stabilize
	 * dentry->d_parent, it *is* enough to stabilize
	 * dentry->d_parent == parent.
         */
        if (unlikely(parent != dentry->d_parent)) {
                spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
                goto again;
        }
        rcu_read_unlock();
        if (parent != dentry)
                spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
        else
                parent = NULL;
        return parent;
}

That variant got force-pushed in place of the previous one, again at the
head of #for-linus.  And I'm definitely not folding it in until it gets
more review and testing.
--
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/