linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: add kmem_alloc

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: <ad8037c8-d1af-fb4f-1226-af585df492d3@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 14:19:04 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: add kmem_alloc_io()

On 8/22/19 2:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 01:14:30PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> 
> No, the problem is this (using kmalloc as a general term for
> allocation, whether it be kmalloc, kmem_cache_alloc, alloc_page, etc)
> 
>    some random kernel code
>     kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>      reclaim
>      PF_MEMALLOC
>      shrink_slab
>       xfs_inode_shrink
>        XFS_ILOCK
>         xfs_buf_allocate_memory()
>          kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
> 
> And so locks on inodes in reclaim are seen below reclaim. Then
> somewhere else we have:
> 
>    some high level read-only xfs code like readdir
>     XFS_ILOCK
>      xfs_buf_allocate_memory()
>       kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL)
>        reclaim
> 
> And this one throws false positive lockdep warnings because we
> called into reclaim with XFS_ILOCK held and GFP_KERNEL alloc

OK, and what exactly makes this positive a false one? Why can't it continue like
the first example where reclaim leads to another XFS_ILOCK, thus deadlock?

> context. So the only solution we had at the tiem to shut it up was:
> 
>    some high level read-only xfs code like readdir
>     XFS_ILOCK
>      xfs_buf_allocate_memory()
>       kmalloc(GFP_NOFS)
> 
> So that lockdep sees it's not going to recurse into reclaim and
> doesn't throw a warning...

AFAICS that GFP_NOFS would fix not only a warning but also a real deadlock
(depending on the answer to my previous question).

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
>