linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone

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:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:39:19 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     hch@....de, mgorman@...e.de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages
 per zone

On Sun 05-02-17 19:43:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> I got same warning with ext4. Maybe we need to check carefully.
> 
> [  511.215743] =====================================================
> [  511.218003] WARNING: RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected
> [  511.220031] 4.10.0-rc6-next-20170202+ #500 Not tainted
> [  511.221689] -----------------------------------------------------
> [  511.223579] a.out/49302 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> [  511.225533]  (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810a1477>] get_online_cpus+0x37/0x80
> [  511.227795] 
> [  511.227795] and this task is already holding:
> [  511.230082]  (jbd2_handle){++++-.}, at: [<ffffffff813a8be7>] start_this_handle+0x1a7/0x590
> [  511.232592] which would create a new lock dependency:
> [  511.234192]  (jbd2_handle){++++-.} -> (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}
> [  511.235966] 
> [  511.235966] but this new dependency connects a RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe lock:
> [  511.238563]  (jbd2_handle){++++-.}
> [  511.238564] 
> [  511.238564] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe at:
> [  511.242078]   
> [  511.242084] [<ffffffff811089db>] __lock_acquire+0x34b/0x1640
> [  511.244495] [<ffffffff8110a119>] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x250
> [  511.246697] [<ffffffff813b3525>] jbd2_log_wait_commit+0x55/0x1d0
[...]
> [  511.276216] to a RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe lock:
> [  511.278128]  (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}
> [  511.278130] 
> [  511.278130] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe at:
> [  511.281809] ...
> [  511.281811]   
> [  511.282598] [<ffffffff81108141>] mark_held_locks+0x71/0x90
> [  511.284854] [<ffffffff8110ab6f>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x6f/0xd0
> [  511.287218] [<ffffffff812744c8>] kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0x48/0x3b0
> [  511.289755] [<ffffffff810cfa65>] __smpboot_create_thread.part.2+0x35/0xf0
> [  511.292329] [<ffffffff810d0026>] smpboot_create_threads+0x66/0x90
[...]
> [  511.317867] other info that might help us debug this:
> [  511.317867] 
> [  511.320920]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> [  511.320920] 
> [  511.323218]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [  511.324622]        ----                    ----
> [  511.325973]   lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map);
> [  511.327246]                                local_irq_disable();
> [  511.328870]                                lock(jbd2_handle);
> [  511.330483]                                lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map);
> [  511.332259]   <Interrupt>
> [  511.333187]     lock(jbd2_handle);

Peter, is there any way how to tell the lockdep that this is in fact
reclaim safe? The direct reclaim only does the trylock and backs off so
we cannot deadlock here.

Or am I misinterpreting the trace?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs