tree e0373c2ee59446b3f8f9c2bfae9f75ff05e73f6c
parent d645fc0eabbe783d34a14fbb31768ad8571f0ad4
author Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> 1452905851 -0800
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 1452909392 -0800

mm: fix locking order in mm_take_all_locks()

Dmitry Vyukov has reported[1] possible deadlock (triggered by his
syzkaller fuzzer):

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key);
                               lock(&mapping->i_mmap_rwsem);
                               lock(&hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key);
  lock(&mapping->i_mmap_rwsem);

Both traces points to mm_take_all_locks() as a source of the problem.
It doesn't take care about ordering or hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key (aka
mapping->i_mmap_rwsem for hugetlb mapping) vs.  i_mmap_rwsem.

huge_pmd_share() does memory allocation under hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key
and allocator can take i_mmap_rwsem if it hit reclaim.  So we need to
take i_mmap_rwsem from all hugetlb VMAs before taking i_mmap_rwsem from
rest of VMAs.

The patch also documents locking order for hugetlbfs_i_mmap_rwsem_key.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CACT4Y+Zu95tBs-0EvdiAKzUOsb4tczRRfCRTpLr4bg_OP9HuVg@mail.gmail.com

Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>