[PATCH v2 1/2] fcntl: fix potential deadlocks for &fown_struct.lock

Eric Biggers ebiggers at kernel.org
Wed Jul 7 17:58:01 UTC 2021


On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:25:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 12:18:45PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 17:46 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:34:17AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:31:06PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:19:36AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:06:45PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:51:29AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 07:40:47AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 12:51 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:44:42AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2021-07-07 at 08:05 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:35:47AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled());
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > If this triggers, you just rebooted the box :(
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please never do this, either properly handle the problem and return an
> > > > > > > > > > > > error, or do not check for this.  It is not any type of "fix" at all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and at most, a debugging aid while you work on the root problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait, what? Why would testing for irqs being disabled and throwing a
> > > > > > > > > > > WARN_ON in that case crash the box?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > If panic-on-warn is enabled, which is a common setting for systems these
> > > > > > > > > > days.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Ok, that makes some sense.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Wait, I don't get it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > How are we supposed to decide when to use WARN, when to use BUG, and
> > > > > > > > when to panic?  Do we really want to treat them all as equivalent?  And
> > > > > > > > who exactly is turning on panic-on-warn?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You never use WARN or BUG, unless the system is so messed up that you
> > > > > > > can not possibly recover from the issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've heard similar advice for BUG before, but this is the first I've
> > > > > > heard it for WARN.  Do we have any guidelines for how to choose between
> > > > > > WARN and BUG?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Never use either :)
> > > > 
> > > > I can't tell if you're kidding.
> > > 
> > > I am not.
> > > 
> > > > Is there some plan to remove them?
> > > 
> > > Over time, yes.  And any WARN that userspace can ever hit should be
> > > removed today.
> > > 
> > > > There are definitely cases where I've been able to resolve a problem
> > > > more quickly because I got a backtrace from a WARN.
> > > 
> > > If you want a backtrace, ask for that, recover from the error, and move
> > > on.  Do not allow userspace to reboot a machine for no good reason as
> > > again, panic-on-warn is a common setting that people use now.
> > > 
> > > This is what all of the syzbot work has been doing, it triggers things
> > > that cause WARN() to be hit and so we have to fix them.
> > > 
> > 
> > This seems really draconian. Clearly we do want to fix things that show
> > a WARN (otherwise we wouldn't bother warning about it), but I don't
> > think that's a reason to completely avoid them. My understanding has
> > always been:
> > 
> > BUG: for when you reach some condition where the kernel (probably) can't
> > carry on
> > 
> > WARN: for when you reach some condition that is problematic but where
> > the machine can probably soldier on. 
> > 
> > Over the last several years, I've changed a lot of BUGs into WARNs to
> > avoid crashing the box unnecessarily. If someone is setting
> > panic_on_warn, then aren't they just getting what they asked for?
> > 
> > While I don't feel that strongly about this particular WARN in this
> > patch, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. If someone calls these
> > functions with IRQs disabled, then they might end up with some subtle
> > problems that could be hard to detect otherwise.
> 
> Don't we already have a debugging option that would catch this?
> 
> config DEBUG_IRQFLAGS
>         bool "Debug IRQ flag manipulation"
>         help
>           Enables checks for potentially unsafe enabling or disabling of
>           interrupts, such as calling raw_local_irq_restore() when interrupts
>           are enabled.
> 
> so I think this particular warn is unnecessary.
> 
> But I also disagree with Greg.  Normal users aren't setting panic-on-warn.
> Various build bots are setting panic-on-warn -- and they should -- because
> we shouldn't be able to trigger these kinds of warnings from userspace.
> Those are bugs that should be fixed.  But there's no reason to shy away
> from using a WARN when it's the right thing to do.

Yes, WARN is the right choice for signaling a kernel bug that is "recoverable",
e.g. by returning an error or simply ignoring it.  WARN is the wrong choice only
when the condition is user-triggerable, e.g. via invalid inputs passed to system
calls.  I don't understand why Greg is advocating against all use of WARN; that
would make it harder for kernel bugs to be found and reported.  Users of
panic_on_warn (which are usually test systems) *want* the kernel to panic if an
assertion fails -- that's the whole point of it.  I'm not sure why we are still
having this discussion, as the differences between and valid uses for WARN and
BUG were documented in include/asm-generic/bug.h a long time ago...

- Eric


More information about the Linux-kernel-mentees mailing list