linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove

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: <A5A31713-0D55-487C-814A-1415BB26DC1F@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:25:43 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat



> Am 11.01.2020 um 14:56 schrieb Qian Cai <cai@....pw>:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 11, 2020, at 6:03 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So I just remember why I think this (and the previously reported done
>> for ACPI DIMMs) are false positives. The actual locking order is
>> 
>> onlining/offlining from user space:
>> 
>> kn->count -> device_hotplug_lock -> cpu_hotplug_lock -> mem_hotplug_lock
>> 
>> memory removal:
>> 
>> device_hotplug_lock -> cpu_hotplug_lock -> mem_hotplug_lock -> kn->count
>> 
>> 
>> This looks like a locking inversion - but it's not. Whenever we come via
>> user space we do a mutex_trylock(), which resolves this issue by backing
>> up. The device_hotplug_lock will prevent
>> 
>> I have no clue why the device_hotplug_lock does not pop up in the
>> lockdep report here. Sounds wrong to me.
>> 
>> I think this is a false positive and not stable material.
> 
> The point is that there are other paths does kn->count —> cpu_hotplug_lock without needing device_hotplug_lock to race with memory removal.
> 
> kmem_cache_shrink_all+0x50/0x100 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem/mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem)
> shrink_store+0x34/0x60
> slab_attr_store+0x6c/0x170
> sysfs_kf_write+0x70/0xb0
> kernfs_fop_write+0x11c/0x270 ((kn->count)
> __vfs_write+0x3c/0x70
> vfs_write+0xcc/0x200
> ksys_write+0x7c/0x140
> system_call+0x5c/0x6
> 

But not the lock of the memory devices, or am I missing something?