linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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:	Sat, 13 Dec 2014 23:47:30 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:38:57PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Er...  There's much more direct reason - suppose we get a timer interrupt
> > right in the middle of mnt_drop_write().  And lost the timeslice.
> 
> So?
> 
> You didn't have preemption disabled in *between* the mnt_want_write()
> and mnt_drop_write(), there's absolutely no reason to have it inside
> of them.
> 
> Nobody cares if you get preempted and go away for a while. It's
> exactly equivalent to sleeping while doing the write that the pair was
> protecting.
> 
> Seriously, the preemption disable looks like just voodoo code. It
> doesn't protect anything, it doesn't fix anything, it doesn't change
> anything. All it does is disable preemption over a random sequence of
> code.

Huh?  Sure, we can enable it after mnt_inc_writers() and disable just prior to
mnt_dec_writers(), but we absolutely *do* need it disabled during either.
Is that what you are talking about?  If so, yes, we can do that.

But that applies only to __mnt_want_write() - __mnt_drop_write() is pure
mnt_dec_writers() and we can't call that one with preemption enabled.
Seriously, look at the mnt_dec_writers():
static inline void mnt_dec_writers(struct mount *mnt)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
        this_cpu_dec(mnt->mnt_pcp->mnt_writers);  
#else
        mnt->mnt_writers--;
#endif
}
It's load/modify/store, without any kind of atomicity; get preempted in the
middle of that sequence by another caller of mnt_dec_writers() and obvious bad
things will happen...

Al, really confused by now...
--
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/