linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and thaw

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, 12 Aug 2015 15:11:38 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and
	thaw_super() paths

On 08/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The only essential change is that I dropped the lockdep improvements
> as we discussed. This means that 8/8 was changed a bit, and I decided
> to add the new documentation patch, see 3/8.

Update: The recent

	[PATCH 0/2] xfs: kill lockdep false positives from readdir

changes from Dave fixed the problems ILOCK false-positives. So we can
add the additional patch which (modulo comments) just turns v2 back into
v1.

Dave, Jan, you seem to agree with these patches. How should we route
this all?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and thaw_super() paths

sb_wait_write()->percpu_rwsem_release() fools lockdep to avoid the
false-positives. Now that xfs was fixed by Dave we can remove it and
change freeze_super() and thaw_super() to run with s_writers.rw_sem
locks held; we add two trivial helpers for that, sb_freeze_release()
and sb_freeze_acquire().

While at it, kill the outdated part of the comment above sb_wait_write.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
 fs/super.c |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 8762997..91c9756 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1208,32 +1208,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sb_start_write);
  * @level: type of writers we wait for (normal vs page fault)
  *
  * This function waits until there are no writers of given type to given file
- * system. Caller of this function should make sure there can be no new writers
- * of type @level before calling this function. Otherwise this function can
- * livelock.
+ * system.
  */
 static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 {
 	percpu_down_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1);
-	/*
-	 * We are going to return to userspace and forget about this lock, the
-	 * ownership goes to the caller of thaw_super() which does unlock.
-	 *
-	 * FIXME: we should do this before return from freeze_super() after we
-	 * called sync_filesystem(sb) and s_op->freeze_fs(sb), and thaw_super()
-	 * should re-acquire these locks before s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb). However
-	 * this leads to lockdep false-positives, so currently we do the early
-	 * release right after acquire.
-	 */
-	percpu_rwsem_release(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1, 0, _THIS_IP_);
 }
 
-static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb)
+/*
+ * We are going to return to userspace and forget about these locks, the
+ * ownership goes to the caller of thaw_super() which does unlock().
+ */
+static void sb_freeze_release(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	int level;
+
+	for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; --level >= 0; )
+		percpu_rwsem_release(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Tell lockdep we are holding these locks before we call ->unfreeze_fs(sb).
+ */
+static void sb_freeze_acquire(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	int level;
 
 	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level)
 		percpu_rwsem_acquire(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);
+}
+
+static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	int level;
 
 	for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; --level >= 0; )
 		percpu_up_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level);
@@ -1329,6 +1336,7 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 	 * sees write activity when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
 	 */
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
+	sb_freeze_release(sb);
 	up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -1355,11 +1363,14 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	sb_freeze_acquire(sb);
+
 	if (sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs) {
 		error = sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb);
 		if (error) {
 			printk(KERN_ERR
 				"VFS:Filesystem thaw failed\n");
+			sb_freeze_release(sb);
 			up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 			return error;
 		}
-- 
1.5.5.1


--
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/