[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUEEDE+OcfX66YJDC6dA+b-URHhUtWtv+sn-t5Esk_FWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:44:35 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: net: BUG still has locks held in unix_stream_splice_read
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> E.g what will happen if some code does a read on AF_UNIX socket with
> some local mutex held? AFAICS, there are exactly two callers of
> freezable_schedule_timeout() - this one and one in XFS; the latter is
> in a kernel thread where we do have good warranties about the locking
> environment, but here it's in the bleeding ->recvmsg/->splice_read and
> for those assumption that caller doesn't hold any locks is pretty
> strong, especially since it's not documented anywhere.
>
> What's going on there?
Commit 2b15af6f95 ("af_unix: use freezable blocking calls in read")
converts schedule_timeout() to its freezable version, it was probably correct
at that time, but later, commit 2b514574f7e88c8498027ee366
("net: af_unix: implement splice for stream af_unix sockets") breaks its
requirement for a freezable sleep:
commit 0f9548ca10916dec166eaf74c816bded7d8e611d
lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held. Holding a lock can cause a
deadlock if the lock is later acquired in the suspend or hibernate path
(e.g. by dpm). Holding a lock can also cause a deadlock in the case of
cgroup_freezer if a lock is held inside a frozen cgroup that is later
acquired by a process outside that group.
So probably we just need to revert commit 2b15af6f95 now.
I am going to send a revert for at least -net and -stable, since Dmitry
saw this warning again.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists