linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.2 38/62] jffs2: Fix page lock / f->sem deadlock

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:	Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:18:22 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	"David Woodhouse" <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	"Szabó Tamás" 
	<sztomi89@...il.com>,
	"Thomas Betker" <thomas.betker@...de-schwarz.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.2 38/62] jffs2: Fix page lock / f->sem deadlock

3.2.79-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>

commit 49e91e7079febe59a20ca885a87dd1c54240d0f1 upstream.

With this fix, all code paths should now be obtaining the page lock before
f->sem.

Reported-by: Szabó Tamás <sztomi89@...il.com>
Tested-by: Thomas Betker <thomas.betker@...de-schwarz.com>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
 fs/jffs2/README.Locking |  5 +----
 fs/jffs2/gc.c           | 17 ++++++++++-------
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/jffs2/README.Locking
+++ b/fs/jffs2/README.Locking
@@ -2,10 +2,6 @@
 	JFFS2 LOCKING DOCUMENTATION
 	---------------------------
 
-At least theoretically, JFFS2 does not require the Big Kernel Lock
-(BKL), which was always helpfully obtained for it by Linux 2.4 VFS
-code. It has its own locking, as described below.
-
 This document attempts to describe the existing locking rules for
 JFFS2. It is not expected to remain perfectly up to date, but ought to
 be fairly close.
@@ -69,6 +65,7 @@ Ordering constraints:
 	   any f->sem held.
 	2. Never attempt to lock two file mutexes in one thread.
 	   No ordering rules have been made for doing so.
+	3. Never lock a page cache page with f->sem held.
 
 
 	erase_completion_lock spinlock
--- a/fs/jffs2/gc.c
+++ b/fs/jffs2/gc.c
@@ -1246,14 +1246,17 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_dnode(s
 		BUG_ON(start > orig_start);
 	}
 
-	/* First, use readpage() to read the appropriate page into the page cache */
-	/* Q: What happens if we actually try to GC the _same_ page for which commit_write()
-	 *    triggered garbage collection in the first place?
-	 * A: I _think_ it's OK. read_cache_page shouldn't deadlock, we'll write out the
-	 *    page OK. We'll actually write it out again in commit_write, which is a little
-	 *    suboptimal, but at least we're correct.
-	 */
+	/* The rules state that we must obtain the page lock *before* f->sem, so
+	 * drop f->sem temporarily. Since we also hold c->alloc_sem, nothing's
+	 * actually going to *change* so we're safe; we only allow reading.
+	 *
+	 * It is important to note that jffs2_write_begin() will ensure that its
+	 * page is marked Uptodate before allocating space. That means that if we
+	 * end up here trying to GC the *same* page that jffs2_write_begin() is
+	 * trying to write out, read_cache_page() will not deadlock. */
+	mutex_unlock(&f->sem);
 	pg_ptr = jffs2_gc_fetch_page(c, f, start, &pg);
+	mutex_lock(&f->sem);
 
 	if (IS_ERR(pg_ptr)) {
 		printk(KERN_WARNING "read_cache_page() returned error: %ld\n", PTR_ERR(pg_ptr));