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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425070912.GZ4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:09:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: fix fs_reclaim annotation

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 03:58:34PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>
> > > 
> > > While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a situation
> > > in which reclaim would lock i_rwsem, and even though the swapon() path
> > > clearly made GFP_KERNEL allocations while holding i_rwsem, I got no
> > > complaints from lockdep. It turns out that the rework of the fs_reclaim
> > > annotation was broken: if the current task has PF_MEMALLOC set, we don't
> > > acquire the dummy fs_reclaim lock, but when reclaiming we always check
> > > this _after_ we've just set the PF_MEMALLOC flag. In most cases, we can
> > > fix this by moving the fs_reclaim_{acquire,release}() outside of the
> > > memalloc_noreclaim_{save,restore}(), althought kswapd is slightly
> > > different. After applying this, I got the expected lockdep splats.
> > > 
> > > 1: https://lwn.net/Articles/625412/
> > > Fixes: d92a8cfcb37e ("locking/lockdep: Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation")
> > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>
> > 
> > Urgh, thanks for fixing that!
> 
> Is this going to go through the tip tree? Should Andrew take it?

It's all mm/ code now... so I guess Andrew would be the one routing it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ