linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix deadlock on page reclaim

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: <F7AD868F-D88A-49BC-8E7C-0E2A7416695A@dilger.ca>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:57:36 -0600
From:   Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@....com>,
        Masato Suzuki <masato.suzuki@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix deadlock on page reclaim

On Jul 25, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:33:58PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> +	gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> +
>> 	switch (ext4_inode_journal_mode(inode)) {
>> 	case EXT4_INODE_ORDERED_DATA_MODE:
>> 	case EXT4_INODE_WRITEBACK_DATA_MODE:
>> @@ -4019,6 +4019,14 @@ void ext4_set_aops(struct inode *inode)
>> 		inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &ext4_da_aops;
>> 	else
>> 		inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &ext4_aops;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Ensure all page cache allocations are done from GFP_NOFS context to
>> +	 * prevent direct reclaim recursion back into the filesystem and blowing
>> +	 * stacks or deadlocking.
>> +	 */
>> +	gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping);
>> +	mapping_set_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping, (gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_FS)));
> 
> This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
> shouldn't we fix this in common code?

It also has the drawback that it prevents __GFP_FS reclaim when ext4
is *not* at the bottom of the IO stack.

> We could also look into just using memalloc_nofs_save for the page
> cache allocation path instead of the per-mapping gfp_mask.

That makes more sense.

Cheers, Andreas






Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)