linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:07:13 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when
 atomic

Am 26.11.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:32:07PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:17:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:05:04AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> What's the path you are trying to debug?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we had a problem where we held a spin_lock and called
>>>>> copy_(from|to)_user(). We experienced very random deadlocks that took some guy
>>>>> almost a week to debug. The simple might_sleep() check would have showed this
>>>>> error immediately.
>>>>
>>>> This must have been a very old kernel.
>>>> A modern kernel will return an error from copy_to_user.
>>>> Which is really the point of the patch you are trying to revert.
>>>
>>> That's assuming you disabled preemption. If you didn't, and take
>>> a spinlock, you have deadlocks even without userspace access.
>>>
>>
>> (Thanks for your resent, my first email was sent directly to you ... grml)
>>
>> This is what happened on our side (very recent kernel):
>>
>> spin_lock(&lock)
>> copy_to_user(...)
>> spin_unlock(&lock)
> 
> That's a deadlock even without copy_to_user - it's
> enough for the thread to be preempted and another one
> to try taking the lock.

Huh? With CONFIG_PREEMPT spin_lock will disable preemption. (we had preempt = server anyway).

But please: One step back. The problem is not the good path. The problem is that we lost a debugging aid for a known to be broken case. In other words: Our code had a bug. Older kernels detected that kind of bug. With your change we no longer saw the sleeping while atomic. Thats it. See my other mail.

Christian

--
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/