| 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: <CALAqxLVmRdv3eVaf_ue-NutDmjxJA2NNAXnH-Tm4a6ud2U7Q4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:12:21 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: nfs4_do_reclaim lockdep pop in v3.15.0-rc1
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@...marydata.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Jeff Layton
> <jeff.layton@...marydata.com> wrote:
>> I've been working on the patchset to break up the client_mutex in nfsd.
>> While doing some debugging, I had mounted my kernel git tree with
>> NFSv4.1, and was running crash on the vmlinux image in it.
>>
>> A little while later, I saw the following lockdep inversion pop.
>> Unfortunately, I couldn't get the whole log, but I think it's enough to
>> show that there's a potential problem?
>>
>> I've not had time to give it a hard look yet, but thought I'd post it
>> here in the hopes that it might look familiar to someone:
>>
>> [ 2581.104687] ======================================================
>> [ 2581.104716] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> [ 2581.104716] 3.15.0-rc1.jlayton.1+ #2 Tainted: G OE
>> [ 2581.104716] -------------------------------------------------------
>> [ 2581.104716] 2001:470:8:d63:/5622 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 2581.104716] (&(&sp->so_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa036dbdd>] nfs4_do_reclaim+0x5bd/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 2581.104716] (&sp->so_reclaim_seqcount){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> -> #1 (&sp->so_reclaim_seqcount){+.+...}:
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810f9aa2>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1d0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036d8b0>] nfs4_do_reclaim+0x290/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810c260f>] kthread+0xff/0x120
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817e6bfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> -> #0 (&(&sp->so_lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810f919f>] __lock_acquire+0x1b8f/0x1ca0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810f9aa2>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1d0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817dbdae>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3e/0x80
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036dbdd>] nfs4_do_reclaim+0x5bd/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810c260f>] kthread+0xff/0x120
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817e6bfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 2581.104716] ---- ----
>> [ 2581.104716] lock(&sp->so_reclaim_seqcount);
>> [ 2581.104716] lock(&(&sp->so_lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2581.104716] lock(&sp->so_reclaim_seqcount);
>> [ 2581.104716] lock(&(&sp->so_lock)->rlock);
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] 1 lock held by 2001:470:8:d63:/5622:
>> [ 2581.104716] #0: (&sp->so_reclaim_seqcount){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716]
>> [ 2581.104716] stack backtrace:
>> [ 2581.104716] CPU: 2 PID: 5622 Comm: 2001:470:8:d63: Tainted: G OE 3.15.0-rc1.jlayton.1+ #2
>> [ 2581.104716] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
>> [ 2581.104716] 0000000000000000 00000000d29e16c4 ffff8800d8d8fba8 ffffffff817d318e
>> [ 2581.104716] ffffffff8262d5e0 ffff8800d8d8fbe8 ffffffff817ce525 ffff8800d8d8fc40
>> [ 2581.104716] ffff8800362a8b98 ffff8800362a8b98 0000000000000001 ffff8800362a8000
>> [ 2581.104716] Call Trace:
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817d318e>] dump_stack+0x4d/0x66
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817ce525>] print_circular_bug+0x201/0x20f
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810f919f>] __lock_acquire+0x1b8f/0x1ca0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff813dbe9e>] ? debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x17e/0x270
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810f9aa2>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x1d0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036dbdd>] ? nfs4_do_reclaim+0x5bd/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817dbdae>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3e/0x80
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036dbdd>] ? nfs4_do_reclaim+0x5bd/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036dbdd>] nfs4_do_reclaim+0x5bd/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] ? nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036e5fe>] nfs4_run_state_manager+0x7ee/0xc00 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffffa036de10>] ? nfs4_do_reclaim+0x7f0/0x7f0 [nfsv4]
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810c260f>] kthread+0xff/0x120
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810c2510>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff817e6bfc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [ 2581.104716] [<ffffffff810c2510>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x80/0x80
>
> OK. So now that lockdep has been added to raw_seqcount_begin() (commit
> 1ca7d67cf5d5a), exactly what are we supposed to use when we DON'T want
> lockdep to "sanity check" our locking here?
So raw_write_seqcount_* provides the lockdep-disabled methods.
> As far as we're concerned, the above check is completely bogus, and
> there is no deadlock. At best it would be a livelock, and it would be
> because the server is rebooting over and over again (in which case the
> client behaviour of retrying is _correct_).
I've not been able to totally trace the locking path there, but having
a seqlock writes and spinlock ABBA deadlock seems problematic.... at
least at first glance.
So if I'm reading this right... nfs4_reclaim_open_state() takes a
spinlock on so_lock, then the write on the so_reclaim_seqcount, then
drops the so_lock and calls nfs4_put_open_state which reaquires the
so_lock.
And lockdep is worried there may be another thread which called into
nfs4_reclaim_open_state() and took the so_lock while it was
momentarily free, and is blocking waiting on the so_reclaim_seqcount.
This would cause the first threads requisition of the so_lock to
potentially deadlock.
And your point is that this isn't a concern since no other threads can
call nfs4_reclaim_open_state() or any other code path that acquires
those two locks in order? If you're going to disable the lockdep
checks here, you might want to make this restriction really clear in a
comment so no one accidentally breaks that rule.
thanks
-john
--
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