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  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]
Date:	Fri,  8 Aug 2014 13:38:34 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.13 091/259] dm: allocate a special workqueue for deferred device removal

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

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

From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>

commit acfe0ad74d2e1bfc81d1d7bf5e15b043985d3650 upstream.

The commit 2c140a246dc ("dm: allow remove to be deferred") introduced a
deferred removal feature for the device mapper.  When this feature is
used (by passing a flag DM_DEFERRED_REMOVE to DM_DEV_REMOVE_CMD ioctl)
and the user tries to remove a device that is currently in use, the
device will be removed automatically in the future when the last user
closes it.

Device mapper used the system workqueue to perform deferred removals.
However, some targets (dm-raid1, dm-mpath, dm-stripe) flush work items
scheduled for the system workqueue from their destructor.  If the
destructor itself is called from the system workqueue during deferred
removal, it introduces a possible deadlock - the workqueue tries to flush
itself.

Fix this possible deadlock by introducing a new workqueue for deferred
removals.  We allocate just one workqueue for all dm targets.  The
ability of dm targets to process IOs isn't dependent on deferred removal
of unused targets, so a deadlock due to shared workqueue isn't possible.

Also, cleanup local_init() to eliminate potential for returning success
on failure.

Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 drivers/md/dm.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/dm.c b/drivers/md/dm.c
index b49c762..72859fa 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm.c
@@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ static void do_deferred_remove(struct work_struct *w);
 
 static DECLARE_WORK(deferred_remove_work, do_deferred_remove);
 
+static struct workqueue_struct *deferred_remove_workqueue;
+
 /*
  * For bio-based dm.
  * One of these is allocated per bio.
@@ -283,16 +285,24 @@ static int __init local_init(void)
 	if (r)
 		goto out_free_rq_tio_cache;
 
+	deferred_remove_workqueue = alloc_workqueue("kdmremove", WQ_UNBOUND, 1);
+	if (!deferred_remove_workqueue) {
+		r = -ENOMEM;
+		goto out_uevent_exit;
+	}
+
 	_major = major;
 	r = register_blkdev(_major, _name);
 	if (r < 0)
-		goto out_uevent_exit;
+		goto out_free_workqueue;
 
 	if (!_major)
 		_major = r;
 
 	return 0;
 
+out_free_workqueue:
+	destroy_workqueue(deferred_remove_workqueue);
 out_uevent_exit:
 	dm_uevent_exit();
 out_free_rq_tio_cache:
@@ -306,6 +316,7 @@ out_free_io_cache:
 static void local_exit(void)
 {
 	flush_scheduled_work();
+	destroy_workqueue(deferred_remove_workqueue);
 
 	kmem_cache_destroy(_rq_tio_cache);
 	kmem_cache_destroy(_io_cache);
@@ -414,7 +425,7 @@ static void dm_blk_close(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
 
 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&md->open_count) &&
 	    (test_bit(DMF_DEFERRED_REMOVE, &md->flags)))
-		schedule_work(&deferred_remove_work);
+		queue_work(deferred_remove_workqueue, &deferred_remove_work);
 
 	dm_put(md);
 
-- 
1.9.1

--
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