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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:08:15 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Alexander Polakov <apolyakov@...et.ru>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.11 53/88] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock

4.11-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

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

From: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>

commit b17c070fb624cf10162cf92ea5e1ec25cd8ac176 upstream.

__list_lru_walk_one() acquires nlru spin lock (nlru->lock) for longer
duration if there are more number of items in the lru list.  As per the
current code, it can hold the spin lock for upto maximum UINT_MAX
entries at a time.  So if there are more number of items in the lru
list, then "BUG: spinlock lockup suspected" is observed in the below
path:

  spin_bug+0x90
  do_raw_spin_lock+0xfc
  _raw_spin_lock+0x28
  list_lru_add+0x28
  dput+0x1c8
  path_put+0x20
  terminate_walk+0x3c
  path_lookupat+0x100
  filename_lookup+0x6c
  user_path_at_empty+0x54
  SyS_faccessat+0xd0
  el0_svc_naked+0x24

This nlru->lock is acquired by another CPU in this path -

  d_lru_shrink_move+0x34
  dentry_lru_isolate_shrink+0x48
  __list_lru_walk_one.isra.10+0x94
  list_lru_walk_node+0x40
  shrink_dcache_sb+0x60
  do_remount_sb+0xbc
  do_emergency_remount+0xb0
  process_one_work+0x228
  worker_thread+0x2e0
  kthread+0xf4
  ret_from_fork+0x10

Fix this lockup by reducing the number of entries to be shrinked from
the lru list to 1024 at once.  Also, add cond_resched() before
processing the lru list again.

Link: http://marc.info/?t=149722864900001&r=1&w=2
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1498707575-2472-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org
Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Suggested-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Polakov <apolyakov@...et.ru>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/dcache.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -1133,11 +1133,12 @@ void shrink_dcache_sb(struct super_block
 		LIST_HEAD(dispose);
 
 		freed = list_lru_walk(&sb->s_dentry_lru,
-			dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, UINT_MAX);
+			dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, 1024);
 
 		this_cpu_sub(nr_dentry_unused, freed);
 		shrink_dentry_list(&dispose);
-	} while (freed > 0);
+		cond_resched();
+	} while (list_lru_count(&sb->s_dentry_lru) > 0);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dcache_sb);
 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ