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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170731123200.24257-1-yuchao0@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:32:00 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <chao@...nel.org>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix potential deadlock

generic/241 reports below bug:

 ======================================================
 WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
 4.13.0-rc1+ #32 Tainted: G           O
 ------------------------------------------------------
 f2fs_gc-250:0/22186 is trying to acquire lock:
  (&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<f8fa7f0b>] f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]

 but task is already holding lock:
  (sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]

 which lock already depends on the new lock.

 the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

 -> #2 (sb_internal#2){++++.-}:
        __lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
        lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
        __sb_start_write+0x11d/0x1f0
        f2fs_evict_inode+0x2d6/0x4e0 [f2fs]
        evict+0xa8/0x170
        iput+0x1fb/0x2c0
        f2fs_sync_inode_meta+0x3f/0xf0 [f2fs]
        write_checkpoint+0x1b1/0x750 [f2fs]
        f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
        f2fs_do_sync_file.isra.24+0x137/0xa30 [f2fs]
        f2fs_sync_file+0x34/0x40 [f2fs]
        vfs_fsync_range+0x4a/0xa0
        do_fsync+0x3c/0x60
        SyS_fdatasync+0x15/0x20
        do_fast_syscall_32+0xa1/0x1b0
        entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b

 -> #1 (&sbi->cp_mutex){+.+...}:
        __lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
        lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
        __mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
        mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
        write_checkpoint+0x2f/0x750 [f2fs]
        f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
        sync_filesystem+0x67/0x80
        generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x100
        kill_block_super+0x22/0x50
        kill_f2fs_super+0x3a/0x40 [f2fs]
        deactivate_locked_super+0x3d/0x70
        deactivate_super+0x40/0x60
        cleanup_mnt+0x39/0x70
        __cleanup_mnt+0x10/0x20
        task_work_run+0x69/0x80
        exit_to_usermode_loop+0x57/0x92
        do_fast_syscall_32+0x18c/0x1b0
        entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b

 -> #0 (&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}:
        validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
        __lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
        lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
        __mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
        mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
        f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
        f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
        gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
        kthread+0xe9/0x120
        ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24

 other info that might help us debug this:

 Chain exists of:
   &sbi->gc_mutex --> &sbi->cp_mutex --> sb_internal#2

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(sb_internal#2);
                                lock(&sbi->cp_mutex);
                                lock(sb_internal#2);
   lock(&sbi->gc_mutex);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

 1 lock held by f2fs_gc-250:0/22186:
  #0:  (sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 2 PID: 22186 Comm: f2fs_gc-250:0 Tainted: G           O    4.13.0-rc1+ #32
 Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
 Call Trace:
  dump_stack+0x5f/0x92
  print_circular_bug+0x1b3/0x1bd
  validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x20
  __lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
  lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
  ? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
  __mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
  ? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
  mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
  ? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
  f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
  f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
  gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
  ? preempt_schedule_common+0x2f/0x4d
  ? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
  kthread+0xe9/0x120
  ? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
  ? kthread_create_on_node+0x30/0x30
  ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24

The deadlock occurs in below condition:
GC Thread			Thread B
- sb_start_intwrite
				- f2fs_sync_file
				 - f2fs_sync_fs
				  - mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)
				   - write_checkpoint
				    - block_operations
				     - f2fs_sync_inode_meta
				      - iput
				       - sb_start_intwrite
 - mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)

Fix this by altering sb_start_intwrite to sb_start_write_trylock.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
index 1c0117f60083..f57cadae1a30 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
@@ -55,7 +55,8 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
 		}
 #endif
 
-		sb_start_intwrite(sbi->sb);
+		if (!sb_start_write_trylock(sbi->sb))
+			continue;
 
 		/*
 		 * [GC triggering condition]
@@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
 		/* balancing f2fs's metadata periodically */
 		f2fs_balance_fs_bg(sbi);
 next:
-		sb_end_intwrite(sbi->sb);
+		sb_end_write(sbi->sb);
 
 	} while (!kthread_should_stop());
 	return 0;
-- 
2.13.1.388.g69e6b9b4f4a9

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ