linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.14 104/110] btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion

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: <20140628174551.558185207@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:47:41 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 104/110] btrfs: fix lockdep warning with reclaim lock inversion

3.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>

commit ed55b6ac077fe7f9c6490ff55172c4b563562d7c upstream.

When encountering memory pressure, testers have run into the following
lockdep warning. It was caused by __link_block_group calling kobject_add
with the groups_sem held. kobject_add calls kvasprintf with GFP_KERNEL,
which gets us into reclaim context. The kobject doesn't actually need
to be added under the lock -- it just needs to ensure that it's only
added for the first block group to be linked.

=========================================================
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
3.14.0-rc8-default #1 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/169 just changed the state of lock:
 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.-.}, at: [<ffffffffa018baea>] __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x3a/0x200 [btrfs]
but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
 (&found->groups_sem){+++++.}

and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&found->groups_sem);
                               local_irq_disable();
                               lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
                               lock(&found->groups_sem);
  <Interrupt>
    lock(&delayed_node->mutex);

 *** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by kswapd0/169:
 #0:  (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff81159e8a>] shrink_slab+0x3a/0x160
 #1:  (&type->s_umount_key#27){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff811bac6f>] grab_super_passive+0x3f/0x90

Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |   10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -8344,9 +8344,15 @@ static void __link_block_group(struct bt
 			       struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache)
 {
 	int index = get_block_group_index(cache);
+	bool first = false;
 
 	down_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
-	if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[index])) {
+	if (list_empty(&space_info->block_groups[index]))
+		first = true;
+	list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
+	up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
+
+	if (first) {
 		struct kobject *kobj = &space_info->block_group_kobjs[index];
 		int ret;
 
@@ -8358,8 +8364,6 @@ static void __link_block_group(struct bt
 			kobject_put(&space_info->kobj);
 		}
 	}
-	list_add_tail(&cache->list, &space_info->block_groups[index]);
-	up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 }
 
 static struct btrfs_block_group_cache *


--
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/