From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:Avoid soft lockup due to possible attempt of double locking object's lock in __delete_object
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:54:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160831075421.GA15732@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1472582112-9059-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:35:12PM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> This fixes a issue in the current locking logic of the function,
> __delete_object where we are trying to attempt to lock the passed
> object structure's spinlock again after being previously held
> elsewhere by the kmemleak code. Fix this by instead of assuming
> we are the only one contending for the object's lock their are
> possible other users and create two branches, one where we get
> the lock when calling spin_trylock_irqsave on the object's lock
> and the other when the lock is held else where by kmemleak.
Have you actually got a deadlock that requires this fix?
> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
> @@ -631,12 +631,19 @@ static void __delete_object(struct kmemleak_object *object)
>
> /*
> * Locking here also ensures that the corresponding memory block
> - * cannot be freed when it is being scanned.
> + * cannot be freed when it is being scanned. Further more the
> + * object's lock may have been previously holded by another holder
> + * in the kmemleak code, therefore attempt to lock the object's lock
> + * before holding it and unlocking it.
> */
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags);
> - object->flags &= ~OBJECT_ALLOCATED;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
> - put_object(object);
> + if (spin_trylock_irqsave(&object->lock, flags)) {
> + object->flags &= ~OBJECT_ALLOCATED;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&object->lock, flags);
> + put_object(object);
> + } else {
> + object->flags &= ~OBJECT_ALLOCATED;
> + put_object(object);
> + }
NAK. This lock here is needed, as described in the comment, to prevent
an object being freed while it is being scanned. The scan_object()
function acquires the same lock and checks for OBJECT_ALLOCATED before
accessing the memory (which could be vmalloc'ed for example, so freeing
would cause a page fault).
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-31 7:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-30 18:35 Nicholas Krause
2016-08-31 7:54 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2016-08-31 13:24 ` nick
2016-09-07 0:45 ` Rik van Riel
2016-08-31 13:41 ` nick
2016-08-31 14:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-08-31 21:08 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2016-08-31 21:28 ` nick
2016-09-07 0:51 ` Rik van Riel
2016-09-07 1:12 ` nick
2016-09-07 1:22 ` Rik van Riel
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=20160831075421.GA15732@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=xerofoify@gmail.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