From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
syzbot
<syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:06:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180925080622.GA6567@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <70de0609-c9f5-1747-93dc-fc4d693f1c27@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
On Tue 25-09-18 06:06:56, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/09/25 3:47, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * unlock_loop - Unlock loop_mutex as needed.
> >> + *
> >> + * Explicitly call this function before calling fput() or blkdev_reread_part()
> >> + * in order to avoid circular lock dependency. After this function is called,
> >> + * current thread is no longer allowed to access "struct loop_device" memory,
> >> + * for another thread would access that memory as soon as loop_mutex is held.
> >> + */
> >> +static void unlock_loop(void)
> >> +{
> >> + if (loop_mutex_owner == current) {
> >
> > Urgh, why this check? Conditional locking / unlocking is evil so it has to
> > have *very* good reasons and there is not any explanation here. So far I
> > don't see a reason why this is needed at all.
>
> Yeah, this is why Jens hates this patch. But any alternative?
So can you explain why this conditional locking is really necessary?
> >> @@ -630,7 +669,12 @@ static void loop_reread_partitions(struct loop_device *lo,
> >> + unlock_loop();
> >
> > Unlocking in loop_reread_partitions() makes the locking rules ugly. And
> > unnecessarily AFAICT. Can't we just use lo_refcnt to protect us against
> > loop_clr_fd() and freeing of 'lo' structure itself?
>
> Really? I think that just elevating lo->lo_refcnt will cause another lockdep
> warning because __blkdev_reread_part() requires bdev->bd_mutex being held.
> Don't we need to drop the lock in order to solve original lockdep warning at [2] ?
Yes, you have to drop the lo_ctl_mutex before calling
loop_reread_partitions(). But AFAICS all places calling loop_reread_part()
are called from ioctl where we are sure the device is open and thus
lo_refcnt is > 0. So in these places calling loop_reread_partitions()
without lo_ctl_mutex should be fine. The only exception is lo_clr_fd() that
can get called from __lo_release() - and I think we can protect that case
against LOOP_CTL_REMOVE (it cannot really race with anything else) by
keeping lo_state at Lo_rundown until after loop_reread_partitions() has
finished.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-25 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-15 10:58 [PATCH v3 (resend)] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-22 12:39 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-23 22:03 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-24 10:29 ` [PATCH v4] " Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-24 12:31 ` Jan Kara
2018-09-24 13:05 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-24 16:31 ` Jan Kara
2018-09-24 18:47 ` Jan Kara
2018-09-24 21:06 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-09-25 8:06 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2018-09-25 9:57 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=20180925080622.GA6567@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).