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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:26:42 +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 3:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:19:04PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Because above reclaim we only have operations being done on
> referenced inodes, and below reclaim we only have unreferenced
> inodes. We never lock the same inode both above and below reclaim
> at the same time.
> 
> IOWs, an operation above reclaim cannot see, access or lock
> unreferenced inodes, except in inode write clustering, and that uses
> trylocks so cannot deadlock with reclaim.
> 
> An operation below reclaim cannot see, access or lock referenced
> inodes except during inode write clustering, and that uses trylocks
> so cannot deadlock with code above reclaim.

Thanks for elaborating. Perhaps lockdep experts (not me) would know how to
express that. If not possible, then replacing GFP_NOFS with __GFP_NOLOCKDEP
should indeed suppress the warning, while allowing FS reclaim.

> FWIW, I'm trying to make the inode writeback clustering go away from
> reclaim at the moment, so even that possibility is going away soon.
> That will change everything to trylocks in reclaim context, so
> lockdep is going to stop tracking it entirely.

That's also a nice solution :)

> Hmmm - maybe we're getting to the point where we actually
> don't need GFP_NOFS/PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS at all in XFS anymore.....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
>