| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20180327162751.466921085@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:26:56 +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,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 024/101] lockdep: fix fs_reclaim warning
4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
commit 2e517d681632326ed98399cb4dd99519efe3e32c upstream.
Dave Jones reported fs_reclaim lockdep warnings.
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
4.15.0-rc9-backup-debug+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
sshd/24800 is trying to acquire lock:
(fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
but task is already holding lock:
(fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(fs_reclaim);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by sshd/24800:
#0: (sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}, at: [<000000001a069652>] tcp_sendmsg+0x19/0x40
#1: (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 24800 Comm: sshd Not tainted 4.15.0-rc9-backup-debug+ #1
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0xbc/0x13f
__lock_acquire+0xa09/0x2040
lock_acquire+0x12e/0x350
fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x29/0x30
kmem_cache_alloc+0x3d/0x2c0
alloc_extent_state+0xa7/0x410
__clear_extent_bit+0x3ea/0x570
try_release_extent_mapping+0x21a/0x260
__btrfs_releasepage+0xb0/0x1c0
btrfs_releasepage+0x161/0x170
try_to_release_page+0x162/0x1c0
shrink_page_list+0x1d5a/0x2fb0
shrink_inactive_list+0x451/0x940
shrink_node_memcg.constprop.88+0x4c9/0x5e0
shrink_node+0x12d/0x260
try_to_free_pages+0x418/0xaf0
__alloc_pages_slowpath+0x976/0x1790
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x52c/0x5c0
new_slab+0x374/0x3f0
___slab_alloc.constprop.81+0x47e/0x5a0
__slab_alloc.constprop.80+0x32/0x60
__kmalloc_track_caller+0x267/0x310
__kmalloc_reserve.isra.40+0x29/0x80
__alloc_skb+0xee/0x390
sk_stream_alloc_skb+0xb8/0x340
tcp_sendmsg_locked+0x8e6/0x1d30
tcp_sendmsg+0x27/0x40
inet_sendmsg+0xd0/0x310
sock_write_iter+0x17a/0x240
__vfs_write+0x2ab/0x380
vfs_write+0xfb/0x260
SyS_write+0xb6/0x140
do_syscall_64+0x1e5/0xc05
entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
This warning is caused by commit d92a8cfcb37e ("locking/lockdep:
Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation") which replaced the use of
lockdep_{set,clear}_current_reclaim_state() in __perform_reclaim()
and lockdep_trace_alloc() in slab_pre_alloc_hook() with
fs_reclaim_acquire()/ fs_reclaim_release().
Since __kmalloc_reserve() from __alloc_skb() adds __GFP_NOMEMALLOC |
__GFP_NOWARN to gfp_mask, and all reclaim path simply propagates
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC, fs_reclaim_acquire() in slab_pre_alloc_hook() is
trying to grab the 'fake' lock again when __perform_reclaim() already
grabbed the 'fake' lock.
The
/* this guy won't enter reclaim */
if ((current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))
return false;
test which causes slab_pre_alloc_hook() to try to grab the 'fake' lock
was added by commit cf40bd16fdad ("lockdep: annotate reclaim context
(__GFP_NOFS)"). But that test is outdated because PF_MEMALLOC thread
won't enter reclaim regardless of __GFP_NOMEMALLOC after commit
341ce06f69ab ("page allocator: calculate the alloc_flags for allocation
only once") added the PF_MEMALLOC safeguard (
/* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */
if (p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
goto nopage;
in __alloc_pages_slowpath()).
Thus, let's fix outdated test by removing __GFP_NOMEMALLOC test and
allow __need_fs_reclaim() to return false.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201802280650.FJC73911.FOSOMLJVFFQtHO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
Fixes: d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
Tested-by: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> [4.14+]
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>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3532,7 +3532,7 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_
return false;
/* this guy won't enter reclaim */
- if ((current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))
+ if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
return false;
/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists