On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:02:33 -0400
Waiman Long <long...@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 <long...@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)
