| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 03:52:51 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: Implement DRW lock
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 04:52:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> A (D)ouble (R)eader (W)riter lock is a locking primitive that allows
> to have multiple readers or multiple writers but not multiple readers
> and writers holding it concurrently. The code is factored out from
> the existing open-coded locking scheme used to exclude pending
> snapshots from nocow writers and vice-versa. Current implementation
> actually favors Readers (that is snapshot creaters) to writers (nocow
> writers of the filesystem).
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
A preliminary question...
What prevents the following sequence of events from happening?
o btrfs_drw_write_lock() invokes btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(),
which sees that lock->readers is zero and thus executes
percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers).
o btrfs_drw_read_lock() increments lock->readers, does the
smp_mb__after_atomic(), and then does the wait_event().
Because btrfs_drw_try_write_lock() incremented its CPU's
lock->writers, the sum is the value one, so it blocks.
o btrfs_drw_try_write_lock() checks lock->readers, sees that
it is now nonzero, and thus invokes btrfs_drw_read_unlock()
(which decrements the current CPU's counter, so that a future
sum would get zero), and returns false.
o btrfs_drw_write_lock() therefore does its wait_event().
Because lock->readers is nonzero, it blocks.
o Both tasks are now blocked. In the absence of future calls
to these functions (and perhaps even given such future calls),
we have deadlock.
So what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> fs/btrfs/Makefile | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h | 23 +++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> create mode 100644 fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Makefile b/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> index ca693dd554e9..dc60127791e6 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/Makefile
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ btrfs-y += super.o ctree.o extent-tree.o print-tree.o root-tree.o dir-item.o \
> export.o tree-log.o free-space-cache.o zlib.o lzo.o zstd.o \
> compression.o delayed-ref.o relocation.o delayed-inode.o scrub.o \
> reada.o backref.o ulist.o qgroup.o send.o dev-replace.o raid56.o \
> - uuid-tree.o props.o free-space-tree.o tree-checker.o
> + uuid-tree.o props.o free-space-tree.o tree-checker.o drw_lock.o
>
> btrfs-$(CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_POSIX_ACL) += acl.o
> btrfs-$(CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_CHECK_INTEGRITY) += check-integrity.o
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9681bf7544be
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
> +#include "drw_lock.h"
> +#include "ctree.h"
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_lock_init(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + atomic_set(&lock->readers, 0);
> + percpu_counter_init(&lock->writers, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_readers);
> + init_waitqueue_head(&lock->pending_writers);
> +}
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_lock_destroy(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + percpu_counter_destroy(&lock->writers);
> +}
> +
> +bool btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + if (atomic_read(&lock->readers))
> + return false;
> +
> + percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers);
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure writers count is updated before we check for
> + * pending readers
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> + if (atomic_read(&lock->readers)) {
> + btrfs_drw_read_unlock(lock);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + while(true) {
> + if (btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(lock))
> + return;
> + wait_event(lock->pending_writers, !atomic_read(&lock->readers));
> + }
> +}
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_write_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + percpu_counter_dec(&lock->writers);
> + cond_wake_up(&lock->pending_readers);
> +}
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_read_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + atomic_inc(&lock->readers);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> +
> + wait_event(lock->pending_readers,
> + percpu_counter_sum(&lock->writers) == 0);
> +}
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_read_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Atomic RMW operations imply full barrier, so woken up writers
> + * are guaranteed to see the decrement
> + */
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&lock->readers))
> + wake_up(&lock->pending_writers);
> +}
> +
> +
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..baff59561c06
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/drw_lock.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> +#ifndef BTRFS_DRW_LOCK_H
> +#define BTRFS_DRW_LOCK_H
> +
> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
> +
> +struct btrfs_drw_lock {
> + atomic_t readers;
> + struct percpu_counter writers;
> + wait_queue_head_t pending_writers;
> + wait_queue_head_t pending_readers;
> +};
> +
> +void btrfs_drw_lock_init(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +void btrfs_drw_lock_destroy(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +void btrfs_drw_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +bool btrfs_drw_try_write_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +void btrfs_drw_write_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +void btrfs_drw_read_lock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +void btrfs_drw_read_unlock(struct btrfs_drw_lock *lock);
> +
> +#endif
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists