linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: fix a race between cgroup_mount() and cgroup_kill

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: <53A8D2B8.4080107@huawei.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:22:00 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cgroup: fix a race between cgroup_mount() and cgroup_kill_sb()

On 2014/6/21 3:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
> 
> Sorry about the long delay.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> We've converted cgroup to kernfs so cgroup won't be intertwined with
>> vfs objects and locking, but there are dark areas.
>>
>> Run two instances of this script concurrently:
>>
>>     for ((; ;))
>>     {
>>     	mount -t cgroup -o cpuacct xxx /cgroup
>>     	umount /cgroup
>>     }
>>
>> After a while, I saw two mount processes were stuck at retrying, because
>> they were waiting for a subsystem to become free, but the root associated
>> with this subsystem never got freed.
>>
>> This can happen, if thread A is in the process of killing superblock but
>> hasn't called percpu_ref_kill(), and at this time thread B is mounting
>> the same cgroup root and finds the root in the root list and performs
>> percpu_ref_try_get().
>>
>> To fix this, we increase the refcnt of the superblock instead of increasing
>> the percpu refcnt of cgroup root.
> 
> Ah, right.  Gees, I'm really hating the fact that we have ->mount but
> not ->umount.  However, can't we make it a bit simpler by just
> introducing a mutex protecting looking up and refing up an existing
> root and a sb going away?  The only problem is that the refcnt being
> killed isn't atomic w.r.t. new live ref coming up, right?  Why not
> just add a mutex around them so that they can't race?
> 

Well, kill_sb() is called with sb->s_umount held, while kernfs_mount()
returned with sb->s_umount held, so adding a mutex will lead to ABBA
deadlock.

--
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/