linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: Use a seperate wq for do_sync

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]

Date:	Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:46:35 +0100
From:	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	david@...morbit.com, bmr@...hat.com, jcastillo@...hat.com,
	mguzik@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: Use a seperate wq for do_sync_work() to avoid a
 potential deadlock

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 08:22:02PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/17, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> >
> > Since do_sync_work() is a deferred function it can block indefinitely by
> > design. At present do_sync_work() is added to the global system_wq.
> > As such a deadlock is theoretically possible between sys_unmount() and
> > sync_filesystems():
> >
> >   * The current work fn on the system_wq (do_sync_work()) is blocked
> >     waiting to aquire a sb's s_umount for reading.
> >
> >   * The "umount" task is the current owner of the s_umount in
> >     question but is waiting for do_sync_work() to continue.
> >     Thus we hit a deadlock situation.
> >
> I can't comment the patches in this area, but I am just curious...
> 
> Could you explain this deadlock in more details? I simply can't understand
> what "waiting for do_sync_work()" actually means.

Hopefully this helps:

	           "umount"                                      "events/1"

sys_umount					    sysrq_handle_sync
  deactivate_super(sb)				      emergency_sync
  {						    	schedule_work(work)
    ...						    	  queue_work(system_wq, work)
    down_write(&s->s_umount)			    	    do_sync_work(work)
    ...						      	      sync_filesystems(0)
    kill_block_super(s)				    		...
      generic_shutdown_super(sb)		    		down_read(&sb->s_umount)
      // sop->put_super(sb)
      ext4_put_super(sb)
	invalidate_bdev(sb->s_bdev)
	  lru_add_drain_all()
	    for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
	      schedule_work_on(cpu, work)
		queue_work_on(cpu, system_wq, work)
		...
	    }
  }

  - Both lru_add_drain and do_sync_work work items are added to
    the same global system_wq

  - The current work fn on the system_wq is do_sync_work and is
    blocked waiting to aquire an sb's s_umount for reading

  - The umount task is the current owner of the s_umount in
    question but is waiting for do_sync_work to continue.
    Thus we hit a deadlock situation.


-- 
Aaron Tomlin
--
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/