| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150504062936.GA772@swordfish>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:29:37 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 9/9] zram: add dynamic device add/remove functionality
On (05/04/15 11:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> I had a time to think over it.
>
> I think your patch is rather tricky so someone cannot see sysfs
> although he already opened /dev/zram but after a while he can see sysfs.
> It's weired.
>
> I want to fix it more generic way. Othewise, we might have trouble with
> locking problem sometime. We already have experieced it with init_lock
> although we finally fixed it.
>
> I think we can fix it with below patch I hope it's more general and right
> approach. It's based on your [zram: return zram device_id from zram_add()]
>
> What do you think about?
>
thanks for looking! didn't have much time over the weekend to
investigate. will take a look later today. at glance I think that
may do the trick.
-ss
> From e943df5407b880f9262ef959b270226fdc81bc9f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 08:36:07 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] zram: close race by open overriding
>
> [1] introduced bdev->bd_mutex to protect a race between mount
> and reset. At that time, we don't have dynamic zram-add/remove
> feature so it was okay.
>
> However, as we introduce dynamic device feature, bd_mutex became
> trouble.
>
> CPU 0
>
> echo 1 > /sys/block/zram<id>/reset
> -> kernfs->s_active(A)
> -> zram:reset_store->bd_mutex(B)
>
> CPU 1
>
> echo <id> > /sys/class/zram/zram-remove
> ->zram:zram_remove: bd_mutex(B)
> -> sysfs_remove_group
> -> kernfs->s_active(A)
>
> IOW, AB -> BA deadlock
>
> The reason we are holding bd_mutex for zram_remove is to prevent
> any incoming open /dev/zram[0-9]. Otherwise, we could remove zram
> others already have opened. But it causes above deadlock problem.
>
> To fix the problem, this patch overrides block_device.open and
> it returns -EBUSY if zram asserts he claims zram to reset so any
> incoming open will be failed so we don't need to hold bd_mutex
> for zram_remove ayn more.
>
> This patch is to prepare for zram-add/remove feature.
>
> [1] ba6b17: zram: fix umount-reset_store-mount race condition
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 3df4394..7fb72dc 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -1074,13 +1074,6 @@ static ssize_t reset_store(struct device *dev,
> if (!bdev)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> - /* Do not reset an active device! */
> - if (bdev->bd_openers) {
> - ret = -EBUSY;
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> ret = kstrtou16(buf, 10, &do_reset);
> if (ret)
> goto out;
> @@ -1090,23 +1083,52 @@ static ssize_t reset_store(struct device *dev,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + /* Do not reset an active device or claimed device */
> + if (bdev->bd_openers || zram->claim) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* From now on, anyone can't open /dev/zram[0-9] */
> + zram->claim = true;
> + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> +
> /* Make sure all pending I/O is finished */
> fsync_bdev(bdev);
> zram_reset_device(zram);
>
> - mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> revalidate_disk(zram->disk);
> bdput(bdev);
>
> - return len;
> + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + zram->claim = false;
> + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
>
> + return len;
> out:
> - mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> bdput(bdev);
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int zram_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct zram *zram;
> +
> + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&bdev->bd_mutex));
> +
> + zram = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> + /* zram was claimed to reset so open request fails */
> + if (zram->claim)
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static const struct block_device_operations zram_devops = {
> + .open = zram_open,
> .swap_slot_free_notify = zram_slot_free_notify,
> .rw_page = zram_rw_page,
> .owner = THIS_MODULE
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> index 042994e..6dbe2df 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
> @@ -115,5 +115,9 @@ struct zram {
> */
> u64 disksize; /* bytes */
> char compressor[10];
> + /*
> + * zram is claimed so open request will be failed
> + */
> + bool claim; /* Protected by bdev->bd_mutex */
> };
> #endif
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>
--
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