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: <20090416085153.GC9813@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:51:53 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	ReiserFS Development List <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [tree] latest kill-the-BKL tree, v12


* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 01:07:36AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 2009/4/14 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>:
> > > >
> > > > * Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 05:34:22AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > >> > Ingo,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This small patchset fixes some deadlocks I've faced after trying
> > > >> > some pressures with dbench on a reiserfs partition.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > There is still some work pending such as adding some checks to ensure we
> > > >> > _always_ release the lock before sleeping, as you suggested.
> > > >> > Also I have to fix a lockdep warning reported by Alessio Igor Bogani.
> > > >> > And also some optimizations....
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Frederic.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Frederic Weisbecker (3):
> > > >> >   kill-the-BKL/reiserfs: provide a tool to lock only once the write lock
> > > >> >   kill-the-BKL/reiserfs: lock only once in reiserfs_truncate_file
> > > >> >   kill-the-BKL/reiserfs: only acquire the write lock once in
> > > >> >     reiserfs_dirty_inode
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  fs/reiserfs/inode.c         |   10 +++++++---
> > > >> >  fs/reiserfs/lock.c          |   26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >> >  fs/reiserfs/super.c         |   15 +++++++++------
> > > >> >  include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h |    2 ++
> > > >> >  4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi
> > > >>
> > > >> The same test - dbench on reiserfs on loop on sparc64.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > >> 2.6.30-rc1-00457-gb21597d-dirty #2
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering ... your version hash suggests you used vanilla
> > > > upstream as a base for your test. There's a string of other fixes
> > > > from Frederic in tip:core/kill-the-BKL branch, have you picked them
> > > > all up when you did your testing?
> > > >
> > > > The most coherent way to test this would be to pick up the latest
> > > > core/kill-the-BKL git tree from:
> > > >
> > > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git core/kill-the-BKL
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I did not know about this branch, now I am testing it and there is 
> > > no more problem with that testcase (dbench).
> > > 
> > > I will continue testing.
> > 
> > thanks for testing it! It seems reiserfs with Frederic's changes 
> > appears to be more stable now on your system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, thanks a lot for this testing!
> 
> 
>  
> > I saw your NFS circular locking kill-the-BKL problem report on LKML 
> > - also attached below.
> > 
> > Hopefully someone on the Cc: list with NFS experience can point out 
> > the BKL assumption that is causing this.
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> > 
> > ----- Forwarded message from Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com> -----
> > 
> > Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:08:01 +0400
> > From: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>
> > To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
> > 	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: [core/kill-the-BKL] nfs3: possible circular locking dependency
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > I have pulled core/kill-the-BKL on top of 2.6.30-rc2.
> > 
> > device: '0:18': device_add
> > 
> > =======================================================
> > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.30-rc2-00057-g30aa902-dirty #5
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > mount.nfs/1740 is trying to acquire lock:
> >  (kernel_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<00000000006f32dc>] lock_kernel+0x28/0x3c
> > 
> > but task is already holding lock:
> >  (&type->s_umount_key#24/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<00000000004b88a0>] sget+0x228/0x36c
> > 
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > 
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > 
> > -> #1 (&type->s_umount_key#24/1){+.+.+.}:
> >        [<00000000004776d0>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x74
> >        [<0000000000469f5c>] down_write_nested+0x38/0x50
> >        [<00000000004b88a0>] sget+0x228/0x36c
> >        [<00000000005688fc>] nfs_get_sb+0x80c/0xa7c
> >        [<00000000004b7ec8>] vfs_kern_mount+0x44/0xa4
> >        [<00000000004b7f84>] do_kern_mount+0x30/0xcc
> >        [<00000000004cf300>] do_mount+0x7c8/0x80c
> >        [<00000000004ed2a4>] compat_sys_mount+0x224/0x274
> >        [<0000000000406154>] linux_sparc_syscall32+0x34/0x40
> > 
> > -> #0 (kernel_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >        [<00000000004776d0>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x74
> >        [<00000000006f0ebc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x380
> >        [<00000000006f32dc>] lock_kernel+0x28/0x3c
> >        [<00000000006d20ec>] rpc_wait_bit_killable+0x64/0x8c
> >        [<00000000006f0620>] __wait_on_bit+0x64/0xc0
> >        [<00000000006f06e4>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x68/0x7c
> >        [<00000000006d2938>] __rpc_execute+0x150/0x2b4
> >        [<00000000006d2ac0>] rpc_execute+0x24/0x34
> >        [<00000000006cc338>] rpc_run_task+0x64/0x74
> >        [<00000000006cc474>] rpc_call_sync+0x58/0x7c
> >        [<00000000005717b0>] nfs3_rpc_wrapper+0x24/0xa0
> >        [<0000000000572024>] do_proc_get_root+0x6c/0x10c
> >        [<00000000005720dc>] nfs3_proc_get_root+0x18/0x5c
> >        [<000000000056401c>] nfs_get_root+0x34/0x17c
> >        [<0000000000568adc>] nfs_get_sb+0x9ec/0xa7c
> >        [<00000000004b7ec8>] vfs_kern_mount+0x44/0xa4
> >        [<00000000004b7f84>] do_kern_mount+0x30/0xcc
> >        [<00000000004cf300>] do_mount+0x7c8/0x80c
> >        [<00000000004ed2a4>] compat_sys_mount+0x224/0x274
> >        [<0000000000406154>] linux_sparc_syscall32+0x34/0x40
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is still the dependency between bkl and s_umount_key that has 
> been reported recently. I wonder if this is not a problem in the 
> fs layer. I should investigate on it.

The problem seem to be that this NFS call context:

-> #0 (kernel_mutex){+.+.+.}:
       [<00000000004776d0>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x74
       [<00000000006f0ebc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x380
       [<00000000006f32dc>] lock_kernel+0x28/0x3c
       [<00000000006d20ec>] rpc_wait_bit_killable+0x64/0x8c
       [<00000000006f0620>] __wait_on_bit+0x64/0xc0
       [<00000000006f06e4>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x68/0x7c
       [<00000000006d2938>] __rpc_execute+0x150/0x2b4
       [<00000000006d2ac0>] rpc_execute+0x24/0x34
       [<00000000006cc338>] rpc_run_task+0x64/0x74
       [<00000000006cc474>] rpc_call_sync+0x58/0x7c
       [<00000000005717b0>] nfs3_rpc_wrapper+0x24/0xa0
       [<0000000000572024>] do_proc_get_root+0x6c/0x10c
       [<00000000005720dc>] nfs3_proc_get_root+0x18/0x5c
       [<000000000056401c>] nfs_get_root+0x34/0x17c
       [<0000000000568adc>] nfs_get_sb+0x9ec/0xa7c
       [<00000000004b7ec8>] vfs_kern_mount+0x44/0xa4
       [<00000000004b7f84>] do_kern_mount+0x30/0xcc
       [<00000000004cf300>] do_mount+0x7c8/0x80c
       [<00000000004ed2a4>] compat_sys_mount+0x224/0x274
       [<0000000000406154>] linux_sparc_syscall32+0x34/0x40

Can be called with the BKL held - and then it schedule()s with the 
BKL held, creating dependencies. I did the quick hack below (a year 
ago! :-) but indeed that's probably wrong: we just drop and then 
re-acquire the BKL at a very low level - inverting the dependency 
chain.

It's not a problem of the NFS code, it's the probem of 
vfs_kern_mount taking the BKL.

Maybe it would be better if nfs_get_sb() dropped the BKL (knowing 
that it's called with the BKL held) - since it does not rely on the 
BKL? Not rpc_wait_bit_killable().

	Ingo

-------------->
>From 352e0d25def53e6b36234e4dc2083ca7f5d712a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:31:41 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] remove the BKL: restructure NFS code

the naked schedule() in rpc_wait_bit_killable() caused the BKL to
be auto-dropped in the past.

avoid the immediate hang in such code. Note that this still leaves
some other locking dependencies to be sorted out in the NFS code.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
 net/sunrpc/sched.c |    6 ++++++
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/sched.c b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
index 6eab9bf..e12e571 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/sched.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
@@ -224,9 +224,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rpc_destroy_wait_queue);
 
 static int rpc_wait_bit_killable(void *word)
 {
+	int bkl = kernel_locked();
+
 	if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
 		return -ERESTARTSYS;
+	if (bkl)
+		unlock_kernel();
 	schedule();
+	if (bkl)
+		lock_kernel();
 	return 0;
 }
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ