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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:33:15 +0200 From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davej@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com, stable@...r.kernel.org, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch added to -mm tree On 07/11/2014 10:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> What if we move lockdep's acquisition point to after it actually got the >> lock? > > NAK, you want to do deadlock detection _before_ you're stuck in a > deadlock. > >> We'd miss deadlocks, but we don't care about them right now. Anyways, doesn't >> lockdep have anything built in to allow us to separate between locks which >> we attempt to acquire and locks that are actually acquired? >> >> (cc PeterZ) >> >> We can treat locks that are in the process of being acquired the same as >> acquired locks to avoid races, but when we print something out it would >> be nice to have annotation of the read state of the lock. > > I'm missing the problem here I think. Quoting Hugh from previous mail in this thread: >> > >> > [ 363.600969] INFO: task trinity-c327:9203 blocked for more than 120 seconds. >> > [ 363.605359] Not tainted 3.16.0-rc4-next-20140708-sasha-00022-g94c7290-dirty #772 >> > [ 363.609730] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >> > [ 363.615861] trinity-c327 D 000000000000000b 13496 9203 8559 0x10000004 >> > [ 363.620284] ffff8800b857bce8 0000000000000002 ffffffff9dc11b10 0000000000000001 >> > [ 363.624468] ffff880104860000 ffff8800b857bfd8 00000000001d7740 00000000001d7740 >> > [ 363.629118] ffff880104863000 ffff880104860000 ffff8800b857bcd8 ffff8801eaed8868 >> > [ 363.633879] Call Trace: >> > [ 363.635442] [<ffffffff9a4dc535>] schedule+0x65/0x70 >> > [ 363.638638] [<ffffffff9a4dc948>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x18/0x30 >> > [ 363.642833] [<ffffffff9a4df0a5>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2e5/0x550 >> > [ 363.646599] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] ? shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350 >> > [ 363.651319] [<ffffffff9719b721>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50 >> > [ 363.654683] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] ? shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350 >> > [ 363.658264] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350 > > So it's trying to acquire i_mutex at shmem_fallocate+0x6c... > >> > [ 363.662010] [<ffffffff971bd96e>] ? put_lock_stats.isra.12+0xe/0x30 >> > [ 363.665866] [<ffffffff9730c043>] do_fallocate+0x153/0x1d0 >> > [ 363.669381] [<ffffffff972b472f>] SyS_madvise+0x33f/0x970 >> > [ 363.672906] [<ffffffff9a4e3f13>] tracesys+0xe1/0xe6 >> > [ 363.682900] 2 locks held by trinity-c327/9203: >> > [ 363.684928] #0: (sb_writers#12){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff9730c02d>] do_fallocate+0x13d/0x1d0 >> > [ 363.715102] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#16){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350 > > ...but it already holds i_mutex, acquired at shmem_fallocate+0x6c. > Am I reading that correctly? The output looks like mutex #1 is already taken, but actually the process is sleeping when trying to take it. It appears that the output has taken mutex_acquire_nest() action into account, but doesn't distinguish if lock_acquired() already happened or not. -- 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