diff options
author | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> | 2017-02-20 18:17:03 +1300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> | 2017-02-22 08:34:53 +1300 |
commit | ace0c791e6c3cf5ef37cad2df69f0d90ccc40ffb (patch) | |
tree | 949d07fc86ef5bafcdcd4b2dc1a8f7ad6af02e01 | |
parent | fea6d2a610c899bb7fd8e95fcbf46900b886e5a3 (diff) | |
download | op-kernel-dev-ace0c791e6c3cf5ef37cad2df69f0d90ccc40ffb.zip op-kernel-dev-ace0c791e6c3cf5ef37cad2df69f0d90ccc40ffb.tar.gz |
proc/sysctl: Don't grab i_lock under sysctl_lock.
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> writes:
> This patch has locking problem. I've got lockdep splat under LTP.
>
> [ 6633.115456] ======================================================
> [ 6633.115502] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 6633.115553] 4.9.10-debug+ #9 Tainted: G L
> [ 6633.115584] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 6633.115627] ksm02/284980 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 6633.115659] (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#4){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff816bc1ce>] igrab+0x1e/0x80
> [ 6633.115834] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 6633.115882] (sysctl_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff817e379b>] unregister_sysctl_table+0x6b/0x110
> [ 6633.116026] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 6633.116026]
> [ 6633.116080]
> [ 6633.116080] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 6633.116117]
> -> #2 (sysctl_lock){+.+...}:
> -> #1 (&(&dentry->d_lockref.lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
> -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#4){+.+...}:
>
> d_lock nests inside i_lock
> sysctl_lock nests inside d_lock in d_compare
>
> This patch adds i_lock nesting inside sysctl_lock.
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> replied:
> Once ->unregistering is set, you can drop sysctl_lock just fine. So I'd
> try something like this - use rcu_read_lock() in proc_sys_prune_dcache(),
> drop sysctl_lock() before it and regain after. Make sure that no inodes
> are added to the list ones ->unregistering has been set and use RCU list
> primitives for modifying the inode list, with sysctl_lock still used to
> serialize its modifications.
>
> Freeing struct inode is RCU-delayed (see proc_destroy_inode()), so doing
> igrab() is safe there. Since we don't drop inode reference until after we'd
> passed beyond it in the list, list_for_each_entry_rcu() should be fine.
I agree with Al Viro's analsysis of the situtation.
Fixes: d6cffbbe9a7e ("proc/sysctl: prune stale dentries during unregistering")
Reported-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Tested-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
-rw-r--r-- | fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 31 |
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c index 8efb1e1..3e64c65 100644 --- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c +++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c @@ -266,21 +266,19 @@ static void proc_sys_prune_dcache(struct ctl_table_header *head) struct inode *inode, *prev = NULL; struct proc_inode *ei; - list_for_each_entry(ei, &head->inodes, sysctl_inodes) { + rcu_read_lock(); + list_for_each_entry_rcu(ei, &head->inodes, sysctl_inodes) { inode = igrab(&ei->vfs_inode); if (inode) { - spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); + rcu_read_unlock(); iput(prev); prev = inode; d_prune_aliases(inode); - spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); + rcu_read_lock(); } } - if (prev) { - spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); - iput(prev); - spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); - } + rcu_read_unlock(); + iput(prev); } /* called under sysctl_lock, will reacquire if has to wait */ @@ -296,10 +294,10 @@ static void start_unregistering(struct ctl_table_header *p) p->unregistering = &wait; spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); wait_for_completion(&wait); - spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); } else { /* anything non-NULL; we'll never dereference it */ p->unregistering = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); } /* * Prune dentries for unregistered sysctls: namespaced sysctls @@ -310,6 +308,7 @@ static void start_unregistering(struct ctl_table_header *p) * do not remove from the list until nobody holds it; walking the * list in do_sysctl() relies on that. */ + spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); erase_header(p); } @@ -455,11 +454,17 @@ static struct inode *proc_sys_make_inode(struct super_block *sb, inode->i_ino = get_next_ino(); ei = PROC_I(inode); - ei->sysctl = head; - ei->sysctl_entry = table; spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); - list_add(&ei->sysctl_inodes, &head->inodes); + if (unlikely(head->unregistering)) { + spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); + iput(inode); + inode = NULL; + goto out; + } + ei->sysctl = head; + ei->sysctl_entry = table; + list_add_rcu(&ei->sysctl_inodes, &head->inodes); head->count++; spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); @@ -487,7 +492,7 @@ out: void proc_sys_evict_inode(struct inode *inode, struct ctl_table_header *head) { spin_lock(&sysctl_lock); - list_del(&PROC_I(inode)->sysctl_inodes); + list_del_rcu(&PROC_I(inode)->sysctl_inodes); if (!--head->count) kfree_rcu(head, rcu); spin_unlock(&sysctl_lock); |