linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq in clear_page_dirty_for

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: <20180403120312.GS5501@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:03:32 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Wang Long <wanglong19@...tuan.com>
Cc:     tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, gthelen@...gle.com,
        akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Is it correctly that the usage for spin_{lock|unlock}_irq
 in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Mon 02-04-18 19:50:50, Wang Long wrote:
> 
> Hi,  Johannes Weiner and Tejun Heo
> 
> I use linux-4.4.y to test the new cgroup controller io and the current
> stable kernel linux-4.4.y has the follow logic
> 
> 
> int clear_page_dirty_for_io(struct page *page){
> ...
> ...
>                 memcg = mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat(page); ----------(a)
>                 wb = unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin(inode, &locked); ---------(b)
>                 if (TestClearPageDirty(page)) {
>                         mem_cgroup_dec_page_stat(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_DIRTY);
>                         dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
>                         dec_wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE);
>                         ret =1;
>                 }
>                 unlocked_inode_to_wb_end(inode, locked); -----------(c)
>                 mem_cgroup_end_page_stat(memcg); -------------(d)
>                 return ret;
> ...
> ...
> }
> 
> 
> when memcg is moving, and I_WB_SWITCH flags for inode is set. the logic
> is the following:
> 
> 
> spin_lock_irqsave(&memcg->move_lock, flags); -------------(a)
>         spin_lock_irq(&inode->i_mapping->tree_lock); ------------(b)
>         spin_unlock_irq(&inode->i_mapping->tree_lock); -----------(c)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&memcg->move_lock, flags); -----------(d)
> 
> 
> after (c) , the local irq is enabled. I think it is not correct.
> 
> We get a deadlock backtrace after (c), the cpu get an softirq and in the
> irq it also call mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat to lock the same
> memcg->move_lock.
> 
> Since the conditions are too harsh, this scenario is difficult to
> reproduce.  But it really exists.
> 
> So how about change (b) (c) to spin_lock_irqsave/spin_lock_irqrestore?

Yes, it seems we really need this even for the current tree. Please note
that At least clear_page_dirty_for_io doesn't lock memcg anymore.
__cancel_dirty_page still uses lock_page_memcg though (former
mem_cgroup_begin_page_stat).
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs