linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191007151237.GP2381@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:12:37 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        john.ogness@...utronix.de, david@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()

On Mon 07-10-19 10:59:10, Qian Cai wrote:
[...]
> It is almost impossible to eliminate all the indirect call chains from
> console_sem/console_owner_lock to zone->lock because it is too normal that
> something later needs to allocate some memory dynamically, so as long as it
> directly call printk() with zone->lock held, it will be in trouble.

Do you have any example where the console driver really _has_ to
allocate. Because I have hard time to believe this is going to work at
all as the atomic context doesn't allow to do any memory reclaim and
such an allocation would be too easy to fail so the allocation cannot
really rely on it.

So again, crippling the MM code just because of lockdep false possitives
or a broken console driver sounds like a wrong way to approach the
problem.

> [  297.425964] -> #1 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}:
> [  297.425967]        __lock_acquire+0x5b3/0xb40
> [  297.425967]        lock_acquire+0x126/0x280
> [  297.425968]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50
> [  297.425969]        serial8250_console_write+0x3e4/0x450
> [  297.425970]        univ8250_console_write+0x4b/0x60
> [  297.425970]        console_unlock+0x501/0x750
> [  297.425971]        vprintk_emit+0x10d/0x340
> [  297.425972]        vprintk_default+0x1f/0x30
> [  297.425972]        vprintk_func+0x44/0xd4
> [  297.425973]        printk+0x9f/0xc5
> [  297.425974]        register_console+0x39c/0x520
> [  297.425975]        univ8250_console_init+0x23/0x2d
> [  297.425975]        console_init+0x338/0x4cd
> [  297.425976]        start_kernel+0x534/0x724
> [  297.425977]        x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26
> [  297.425977]        x86_64_start_kernel+0xf4/0xfb
> [  297.425978]        secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0

This is an early init code again so the lockdep sounds like a false
possitive to me.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs