| 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: <20140704221436.733842392@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:15:16 -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, hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.4 06/19] UBIFS: Remove incorrect assertion in shrink_tnc()
3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>
commit 72abc8f4b4e8574318189886de627a2bfe6cd0da upstream.
I hit the same assert failed as Dolev Raviv reported in Kernel v3.10
shows like this:
[ 9641.164028] UBIFS assert failed in shrink_tnc at 131 (pid 13297)
[ 9641.234078] CPU: 1 PID: 13297 Comm: mmap.test Tainted: G O 3.10.40 #1
[ 9641.234116] [<c0011a6c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x12c) from [<c000d0b0>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
[ 9641.234137] [<c000d0b0>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<c0311134>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x28)
[ 9641.234188] [<c0311134>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x28) from [<bf22425c>] (shrink_tnc_trees+0x25c/0x350 [ubifs])
[ 9641.234265] [<bf22425c>] (shrink_tnc_trees+0x25c/0x350 [ubifs]) from [<bf2245ac>] (ubifs_shrinker+0x25c/0x310 [ubifs])
[ 9641.234307] [<bf2245ac>] (ubifs_shrinker+0x25c/0x310 [ubifs]) from [<c00cdad8>] (shrink_slab+0x1d4/0x2f8)
[ 9641.234327] [<c00cdad8>] (shrink_slab+0x1d4/0x2f8) from [<c00d03d0>] (do_try_to_free_pages+0x300/0x544)
[ 9641.234344] [<c00d03d0>] (do_try_to_free_pages+0x300/0x544) from [<c00d0a44>] (try_to_free_pages+0x2d0/0x398)
[ 9641.234363] [<c00d0a44>] (try_to_free_pages+0x2d0/0x398) from [<c00c6a60>] (__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x494/0x7e8)
[ 9641.234382] [<c00c6a60>] (__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x494/0x7e8) from [<c00f62d8>] (new_slab+0x78/0x238)
[ 9641.234400] [<c00f62d8>] (new_slab+0x78/0x238) from [<c031081c>] (__slab_alloc.constprop.42+0x1a4/0x50c)
[ 9641.234419] [<c031081c>] (__slab_alloc.constprop.42+0x1a4/0x50c) from [<c00f80e8>] (kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x54/0x188)
[ 9641.234459] [<c00f80e8>] (kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x54/0x188) from [<bf227908>] (do_readpage+0x168/0x468 [ubifs])
[ 9641.234553] [<bf227908>] (do_readpage+0x168/0x468 [ubifs]) from [<bf2296a0>] (ubifs_readpage+0x424/0x464 [ubifs])
[ 9641.234606] [<bf2296a0>] (ubifs_readpage+0x424/0x464 [ubifs]) from [<c00c17c0>] (filemap_fault+0x304/0x418)
[ 9641.234638] [<c00c17c0>] (filemap_fault+0x304/0x418) from [<c00de694>] (__do_fault+0xd4/0x530)
[ 9641.234665] [<c00de694>] (__do_fault+0xd4/0x530) from [<c00e10c0>] (handle_pte_fault+0x480/0xf54)
[ 9641.234690] [<c00e10c0>] (handle_pte_fault+0x480/0xf54) from [<c00e2bf8>] (handle_mm_fault+0x140/0x184)
[ 9641.234716] [<c00e2bf8>] (handle_mm_fault+0x140/0x184) from [<c0316688>] (do_page_fault+0x150/0x3ac)
[ 9641.234737] [<c0316688>] (do_page_fault+0x150/0x3ac) from [<c000842c>] (do_DataAbort+0x3c/0xa0)
[ 9641.234759] [<c000842c>] (do_DataAbort+0x3c/0xa0) from [<c0314e38>] (__dabt_usr+0x38/0x40)
After analyzing the code, I found a condition that may cause this failed
in correct operations. Thus, I think this assertion is wrong and should be
removed.
Suppose there are two clean znodes and one dirty znode in TNC. So the
per-filesystem atomic_t @clean_zn_cnt is (2). If commit start, dirty_znode
is set to COW_ZNODE in get_znodes_to_commit() in case of potentially ops
on this znode. We clear COW bit and DIRTY bit in write_index() without
@tnc_mutex locked. We don't increase @clean_zn_cnt in this place. As the
comments in write_index() shows, if another process hold @tnc_mutex and
dirty this znode after we clean it, @clean_zn_cnt would be decreased to (1).
We will increase @clean_zn_cnt to (2) with @tnc_mutex locked in
free_obsolete_znodes() to keep it right.
If shrink_tnc() performs between decrease and increase, it will release
other 2 clean znodes it holds and found @clean_zn_cnt is less than zero
(1 - 2 = -1), then hit the assertion. Because free_obsolete_znodes() will
soon correct @clean_zn_cnt and no harm to fs in this case, I think this
assertion could be removed.
2 clean zondes and 1 dirty znode, @clean_zn_cnt == 2
Thread A (commit) Thread B (write or others) Thread C (shrinker)
->write_index
->clear_bit(DIRTY_NODE)
->clear_bit(COW_ZNODE)
@clean_zn_cnt == 2
->mutex_locked(&tnc_mutex)
->dirty_cow_znode
->!ubifs_zn_cow(znode)
->!test_and_set_bit(DIRTY_NODE)
->atomic_dec(&clean_zn_cnt)
->mutex_unlocked(&tnc_mutex)
@clean_zn_cnt == 1
->mutex_locked(&tnc_mutex)
->shrink_tnc
->destroy_tnc_subtree
->atomic_sub(&clean_zn_cnt, 2)
->ubifs_assert <- hit
->mutex_unlocked(&tnc_mutex)
@clean_zn_cnt == -1
->mutex_lock(&tnc_mutex)
->free_obsolete_znodes
->atomic_inc(&clean_zn_cnt)
->mutux_unlock(&tnc_mutex)
@clean_zn_cnt == 0 (correct after shrink)
Signed-off-by: hujianyang <hujianyang@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/ubifs/shrinker.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/ubifs/shrinker.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/shrinker.c
@@ -128,7 +128,6 @@ static int shrink_tnc(struct ubifs_info
freed = ubifs_destroy_tnc_subtree(znode);
atomic_long_sub(freed, &ubifs_clean_zn_cnt);
atomic_long_sub(freed, &c->clean_zn_cnt);
- ubifs_assert(atomic_long_read(&c->clean_zn_cnt) >= 0);
total_freed += freed;
znode = zprev;
}
--
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