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: <20171107005442.GA1405@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:54:42 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        syzbot 
        <bot+f99f3a0db9007f4f4e32db54229a240c4fe57c15@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, jlayton@...hat.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        npiggin@...il.com, rgoldwyn@...e.com, ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in generic_file_write_iter

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:01:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 02:35:44PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 02:15:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Should we annotate these inodes with different lock types? Or use
> > >> > nesting annotations?
> > >>
> > >> Well, you'd need to have a completely separate set of locking classes for
> > >> each filesystem to avoid false positives like these. And that would
> > >> increase number of classes lockdep has to handle significantly. So I'm not
> > >> sure it's really worth it...
> > >
> > > Especially when you consider that backing file might be on a filesystem
> > > that lives on another loop device.  *All* per-{device,fs} locks involved
> > > would need classes split that way...
> > 
> > 
> > This crashes our test machines left and right. We've seen 100000+ of
> > these crashes. We need to do at least something. Can we disable all
> > checking of these mutexes if they inherently have positives?
> 
> Its not the mutexes that's the problem.. Its the completion that crosses
> the filesystem layers.
> 
> > +Ingo, Peter, maybe you have some suggestions of how to fight this
> > lockdep false positives. Full thread is here:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/syzkaller-bugs/NJ_4llH84XI/c7M9jNLTAgAJ
> 
> The best I could come up with is something like the below; its not
> at all pretty and I could see people objecting; least of all myself for
> the __complete() thing, but I ran out of creative naming juice.

Patches assigning a lock_class per gendisk were already applied in tip.
I believe that solves this.

   e319e1fbd9d42420ab6eec0bfd75eb9ad7ca63b1
   block, locking/lockdep: Assign a lock_class per gendisk used for
   wait_for_completion()

I think the following proposal makes kernel too hacky.

> ---
>  block/bio.c                |  2 +-
>  block/blk-core.c           |  8 ++++++--
>  drivers/block/loop.c       |  9 +++++++++
>  include/linux/blk_types.h  |  1 +
>  include/linux/blkdev.h     |  1 +
>  include/linux/completion.h |  8 +++++++-
>  kernel/sched/completion.c  | 11 ++++-------
>  7 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index cc60213e56d8..22bedceb7bae 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -919,7 +919,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(bio_iov_iter_get_pages);
>  
>  static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio)
>  {
> -	complete(bio->bi_private);
> +	__complete(bio->bi_private, !bio_flagged(bio, BIO_STACKED));
>  }
>  
>  /**
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 048be4aa6024..bb4092d716c3 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -194,8 +194,12 @@ static void req_bio_endio(struct request *rq, struct bio *bio,
>  	if (error)
>  		bio->bi_status = error;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(rq->rq_flags & RQF_QUIET))
> -		bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_QUIET);
> +	if (unlikely(rq->rq_flags & (RQF_QUIET|RQF_STACKED))) {
> +		if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_QUIET)
> +			bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_QUIET);
> +		if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_STACKED)
> +			bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_STACKED);
> +	}
>  
>  	bio_advance(bio, nbytes);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 85de67334695..7d702d2c4ade 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -452,6 +452,15 @@ static void lo_complete_rq(struct request *rq)
>  {
>  	struct loop_cmd *cmd = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Assuming loop ensures the associated filesystems form a DAG, this
> +	 * cross-filesystem release can never form a deadlock.
> +	 *
> +	 * Inform the request that the corresponding BIO is of a stacked
> +	 * device and thereby forgo dependency checking.
> +	 */
> +	rq->rq_flags |= RQF_STACKED;
> +
>  	if (unlikely(req_op(cmd->rq) == REQ_OP_READ && cmd->use_aio &&
>  		     cmd->ret >= 0 && cmd->ret < blk_rq_bytes(cmd->rq))) {
>  		struct bio *bio = cmd->rq->bio;
> diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h
> index 96ac3815542c..bf9b37de7975 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ struct bio {
>  				 * throttling rules. Don't do it again. */
>  #define BIO_TRACE_COMPLETION 10	/* bio_endio() should trace the final completion
>  				 * of this bio. */
> +#define BIO_STACKED	11
>  /* See BVEC_POOL_OFFSET below before adding new flags */
>  
>  /*
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index 8da66379f7ea..dcf4b1a70f77 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -121,6 +121,7 @@ typedef __u32 __bitwise req_flags_t;
>  /* Look at ->special_vec for the actual data payload instead of the
>     bio chain. */
>  #define RQF_SPECIAL_PAYLOAD	((__force req_flags_t)(1 << 18))
> +#define RQF_STACKED		((__force req_flags_t)(1 << 19))
>  
>  /* flags that prevent us from merging requests: */
>  #define RQF_NOMERGE_FLAGS \
> diff --git a/include/linux/completion.h b/include/linux/completion.h
> index 0662a417febe..a6680197f2af 100644
> --- a/include/linux/completion.h
> +++ b/include/linux/completion.h
> @@ -161,7 +161,13 @@ extern long wait_for_completion_killable_timeout(
>  extern bool try_wait_for_completion(struct completion *x);
>  extern bool completion_done(struct completion *x);
>  
> -extern void complete(struct completion *);
> +extern void __complete(struct completion *, bool);
> +
> +static inline void complete(struct completion *x)
> +{
> +	__complete(x, true);
> +}
> +
>  extern void complete_all(struct completion *);
>  
>  #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> index 2ddaec40956f..a2071513decf 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> @@ -28,23 +28,20 @@
>   * It may be assumed that this function implies a write memory barrier before
>   * changing the task state if and only if any tasks are woken up.
>   */
> -void complete(struct completion *x)
> +void __complete(struct completion *x, bool link)
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Perform commit of crossrelease here.
> -	 */
> -	complete_release_commit(x);
> +	if (link)
> +		complete_release_commit(x);
>  
>  	if (x->done != UINT_MAX)
>  		x->done++;
>  	__wake_up_locked(&x->wait, TASK_NORMAL, 1);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
>  }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__complete);
>  
>  /**
>   * complete_all: - signals all threads waiting on this completion

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ