netdev - Re: Regression v6.11 booting cannot mount harddisks (xfs)

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: <5428ec4f-a961-4ef4-b9d0-e689fa3d00bd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 21:07:27 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, cassel@...nel.org,
 handan.babu@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
 Linux-XFS <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, hdegoede@...hat.com,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: Regression v6.11 booting cannot mount harddisks (xfs)

On 10/09/2024 20.30, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 10:53, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> af2814149883e2c1851866ea2afcd8eadc040f79 is the first bad commit
> 
> Just for fun - can you test moving the queue freezing *inside* the
> mutex, ie something like
> 
>    --- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
>    +++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
>    @@ -670,11 +670,11 @@ queue_attr_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct
> attribute *attr,
>            if (!entry->store)
>                    return -EIO;
> 
>    -       blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
>            mutex_lock(&q->sysfs_lock);
>    +       blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
>            res = entry->store(disk, page, length);
>    -       mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
>            blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q);
>    +       mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
>            return res;
>     }
> 
> (Just do it by hand, my patch is whitespace-damaged on purpose -
> untested and not well thought through).
> 
> Because I'm wondering whether maybe some IO is done under the
> sysfs_lock, and then you might have a deadlock?
> 
>                Linus

Tested the patch (manually applied change) and it did NOT help.

More likely the patch/fix Jens pointed to is the culprit.

--Jesper