linux-kernel - Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain

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]

Message-ID: <20171101235456.GA3928@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 08:54:56 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        syzbot 
        <bot+e7353c7141ff7cbb718e4c888a14fa92de41ebaa@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        jglisse@...hat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, shli@...com, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, ying.huang@...el.com,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all

On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 01:01:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:59:27PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 04:10:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 03:58:04PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Tue 31-10-17 15:52:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > If we want to save those stacks; we have to save a stacktrace on _every_
> > > > > lock acquire, simply because we never know ahead of time if there will
> > > > > be a new link. Doing this is _expensive_.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Furthermore, the space into which we store stacktraces is limited;
> > > > > since memory allocators use locks we can't very well use dynamic memory
> > > > > for lockdep -- that would give recursive and robustness issues.
> > 
> > I agree with all you said.
> > 
> > But, I have a better idea, that is, to save only the caller's ip of each
> > acquisition as an additional information? Of course, it's not enough in
> > some cases, but it's cheep and better than doing nothing.
> > 
> > For example, when building A->B, let's save not only full stack of B,
> > but also caller's ip of A together, then use them on warning like:
> 
> Like said; I've never really had trouble finding where we take A. And

Me, either, since I know the way. But I've seen many guys who got
confused with it, which is why I suggested it.

But, leave it if you don't think so.

> for the most difficult cases, just the IP isn't too useful either.
> 
> So that would solve a non problem while leaving the real problem.