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 /security/smack | |
parent | fea6d2a610c899bb7fd8e95fcbf46900b886e5a3 (diff) |
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>
Diffstat (limited to 'security/smack')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions