Re: Hung task when calling clone() due to netfilter/slab

[Eric W. Biederman]

ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Another version that drops the slub lock for both invocations of sysfs
>> functions from kmem_cache_create. The invocation from slab_sysfs_init
>> is not a problem since user space is not active at that point.
>>
>>
>> Subject: slub: Do not take the slub lock while calling into sysfs
>>
>> This patch avoids holding the slub_lock during kmem_cache_create()
>> when calling sysfs. It is possible because kmem_cache_create()
>> allocates the kmem_cache object and therefore is the only one context
>> that can access the newly created object. It is therefore possible
>> to drop the slub_lock early. We defer the adding of the new kmem_cache
>> to the end of processing because the new kmem_cache structure would
>> be reachable otherwise via scans over slabs. This allows sysfs_slab_add()
>> to run without holding any locks.
>>
>> The case is different if we are creating an alias instead of a new
>> kmem_cache structure. In that case we can also drop the slub lock
>> early because we have taken a refcount on the kmem_cache structure.
>> It therefore cannot vanish from under us.
>> But if the sysfs_slab_alias() call fails we can no longer simply
>> decrement the refcount since the other references may have gone
>> away in the meantime. Call kmem_cache_destroy() to cause the
>> refcount to be decremented and the kmem_cache structure to be
>> freed if all references are gone.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> I am dense.  Is the deadlock here that you are fixing slub calling sysfs
> with the slub_lock held but sysfs then calling kmem_cache_zalloc?
>
> I don't see what sysfs is doing in the creation path that would cause
> a deadlock except for using slab.

Oh.  I see.  The problem is calling kobject_uevent (which happens to
live in slabs sysfs_slab_add) with a lock held.  And kobject_uevent
makes a blocking call to userspace.

No locks held seems to be a good policy on that one.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/