linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] fix the broken lockdep logic in __sb_start

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:	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:29:41 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] fix the broken lockdep logic in __sb_start_write()

On Thu 13-08-15 15:22:23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > 1. wait_event(frozen < level) without rwsem_acquire_read() is just
> > >    wrong from lockdep perspective. If we are going to deadlock
> > >    because the caller is buggy, lockdep detect this problem.
> > >
> > > 2. __sb_start_write() can race with thaw_super() + freeze_super(),
> > >    and after "goto retry" the 2nd  acquire_freeze_lock() is wrong.
> > >
> > > 3. The "tell lockdep we are doing trylock" hack doesn't look nice.
> > >
> > >    I think this is correct, but this logic should be more explicit.
> > >    Yes, the recursive read_lock() is fine if we hold the lock on a
> > >    higher level. But we do not need to fool lockdep. If we can not
> > >    deadlock in this case then try-lock must not fail and we can use
> > >    use wait == F throughout this code.
> > >
> > > Note: as Dave Chinner explains, the "trylock" hack and the fat comment
> > > can be probably removed. But this needs a separate change and it will
> > > be trivial: just kill __sb_start_write() and rename do_sb_start_write()
> > > back to __sb_start_write().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> >
> > Just a nit below...
> >
> > > +	if (wait)
> > > +		rwsem_acquire_read(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, ip);
> >
> > If we provided also __sb_writers_acquire() helper (in addition to _nowait)
> > variant, we could use these helpers in __sb_start_write() /
> > __sb_end_write() as well which would look better to me when we already have
> > them.
> 
> Why? This code goes away after 8/8.

Right, OK. Objection retracted :).

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/