From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Fix potentail deadlock between delete & sysfs ops
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:11:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170815191145.3c95680e@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1502384553-14442-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:02:33 -0400
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> The lockdep code had reported the following unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(s_active#228);
> lock(&bdev->bd_mutex/1);
> lock(s_active#228);
> lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> The deadlock may happen when one task (CPU1) is trying to delete
> a partition in a block device and another task (CPU0) is accessing
> tracing sysfs file in that partition.
>
> To avoid that, accessing tracing sysfs file will now use a mutex
> trylock loop and the operation will fail if a delete operation is
> in progress.
>
This is wrong at a lot of levels.
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> ---
> block/ioctl.c | 3 +++
> include/linux/fs.h | 1 +
> kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
> index 0de02ee..7211608 100644
> --- a/block/ioctl.c
> +++ b/block/ioctl.c
> @@ -86,12 +86,15 @@ static int blkpg_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, struct blkpg_ioctl_arg __user
> return -EBUSY;
> }
> /* all seems OK */
> + bdev->bd_deleting = 1;
Note, one would need a memory barrier here. But I'm not sure how much
of a fast path this location is.
/*
* Make sure bd_deleting is set before taking
* mutex.
*/
smp_mb();
> fsync_bdev(bdevp);
> invalidate_bdev(bdevp);
>
> mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_mutex, 1);
> delete_partition(disk, partno);
> mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + bdev->bd_deleting = 0;
> +
> mutex_unlock(&bdevp->bd_mutex);
> bdput(bdevp);
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 7b5d681..5d4ae9d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -427,6 +427,7 @@ struct block_device {
> #endif
> struct block_device * bd_contains;
> unsigned bd_block_size;
> + int bd_deleting;
> struct hd_struct * bd_part;
> /* number of times partitions within this device have been opened. */
> unsigned bd_part_count;
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> index bc364f8..715e77e 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c
> @@ -1605,6 +1605,18 @@ static struct request_queue *blk_trace_get_queue(struct block_device *bdev)
> return bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Read/write to the tracing sysfs file requires taking references to the
> + * sysfs file and then acquiring the bd_mutex. Deleting a block device
> + * requires acquiring the bd_mutex and then waiting for all the sysfs
> + * references to be gone. This can lead to deadlock if both operations
> + * happen simultaneously. To avoid this problem, read/write to the
> + * the tracing sysfs files can now fail if the bd_mutex cannot be
> + * acquired while a deletion operation is in progress.
> + *
> + * A mutex trylock loop is used assuming that tracing sysfs operations
> + * aren't frequently enough to cause any contention problem.
> + */
> static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show(struct device *dev,
> struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> @@ -1622,7 +1634,11 @@ static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_show(struct device *dev,
> if (q == NULL)
> goto out_bdput;
>
> - mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + while (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) {
/* Make sure trylock happens before reading bd_deleting */
smp_mb();
Since we don't take the lock, there's nothing that prevents the CPU
from fetching bd_deleting early, and this going into an infinite spin
even though bd_deleting is clear (without the memory barriers).
> + if (bdev->bd_deleting)
> + goto out_bdput;
You also just turned the mutex into a spinlock. What happens if we just
preempted the owner of bdev->bd_mutex and are an RT task with higher
priority? This will turn into a live lock.
> + schedule();
> + }
>
> if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) {
> ret = sprintf(buf, "%u\n", !!q->blk_trace);
> @@ -1683,7 +1699,11 @@ static ssize_t sysfs_blk_trace_attr_store(struct device *dev,
> if (q == NULL)
> goto out_bdput;
>
> - mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> + while (!mutex_trylock(&bdev->bd_mutex)) {
/* Make sure trylock happens before reading bd_deleting */
smp_mb();
> + if (bdev->bd_deleting)
> + goto out_bdput;
Same here.
-- Steve
> + schedule();
> + }
>
> if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) {
> if (value)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-15 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-10 17:02 Waiman Long
2017-08-15 23:11 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-08-16 18:14 ` Waiman Long
2017-08-16 18:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-08-16 18:46 ` Waiman Long
2017-08-16 18:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-08-16 19:07 ` Waiman Long
2017-08-16 19:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-08-16 19:26 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170815191145.3c95680e@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®