[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoKa6CLLF25xx6QX@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 08:41:44 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernfs: Separate kernfs_pr_cont_buf and rename_lock.
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:28:59AM -0700, Hao Luo wrote:
> Previously the protection of kernfs_pr_cont_buf was piggy backed by
> rename_lock, which means that pr_cont() needs to be protected under
> rename_lock. This can cause potential circular lock dependencies.
>
> If there is an OOM, we have the following call hierarchy:
>
> -> cpuset_print_current_mems_allowed()
> -> pr_cont_cgroup_name()
> -> pr_cont_kernfs_name()
>
> pr_cont_kernfs_name() will grab rename_lock and call printk. So we have
> the following lock dependencies:
>
> kernfs_rename_lock -> console_sem
>
> Sometimes, printk does a wakeup before releasing console_sem, which has
> the dependence chain:
>
> console_sem -> p->pi_lock -> rq->lock
>
> Now, imagine one wants to read cgroup_name under rq->lock, for example,
> printing cgroup_name in a tracepoint in the scheduler code. They will
> be holding rq->lock and take rename_lock:
>
> rq->lock -> kernfs_rename_lock
>
> Now they will deadlock.
>
> A prevention to this circular lock dependency is to separate the
> protection of pr_cont_buf from rename_lock. In principle, rename_lock
> is to protect the integrity of cgroup name when copying to buf. Once
> pr_cont_buf has got its content, rename_lock can be dropped. So it's
> safe to drop rename_lock after kernfs_name_locked (and
> kernfs_path_from_node_locked) and rely on a dedicated pr_cont_lock
> to protect pr_cont_buf.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Can you please add a comment explaining why the lock is separate? Other than
that:
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists