On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:28:33PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > The shm implementation internally uses shmem or hugetlbfs inodes > for shm segments. As these inodes are never directly exposed to > userspace and only accessed through the shm operations which are > already hooked by security modules, mark the inodes with the > S_PRIVATE flag so that inode security initialization and permission > checking is skipped. > > This was motivated by the following lockdep warning: > =================================================== > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 4.2.0-0.rc3.git0.1.fc24.x86_64+debug #1 Tainted: G W > ------------------------------------------------------- > httpd/1597 is trying to acquire lock: > (&ids->rwsem){+++++.}, at: [<ffffffff81385354>] shm_close+0x34/0x130 > (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81386bbb>] SyS_shmdt+0x4b/0x180 > [<ffffffff81109a07>] lock_acquire+0xc7/0x270 > [<ffffffff81217baa>] __might_fault+0x7a/0xa0 > [<ffffffff81284a1e>] filldir+0x9e/0x130 > [<ffffffffa019bb08>] xfs_dir2_block_getdents.isra.12+0x198/0x1c0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa019c5b4>] xfs_readdir+0x1b4/0x330 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa019f38b>] xfs_file_readdir+0x2b/0x30 [xfs] > [<ffffffff812847e7>] iterate_dir+0x97/0x130 > [<ffffffff81284d21>] SyS_getdents+0x91/0x120 > [<ffffffff81871d2e>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76 > [<ffffffff81109a07>] lock_acquire+0xc7/0x270 > [<ffffffff81101e97>] down_read_nested+0x57/0xa0 > [<ffffffffa01b0e57>] xfs_ilock+0x167/0x350 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01b10b8>] xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared+0x38/0x50 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa014799d>] xfs_attr_get+0xbd/0x190 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01c17ad>] xfs_xattr_get+0x3d/0x70 [xfs] > [<ffffffff8129962f>] generic_getxattr+0x4f/0x70 > [<ffffffff8139ba52>] inode_doinit_with_dentry+0x162/0x670 > [<ffffffff8139cf69>] sb_finish_set_opts+0xd9/0x230 > [<ffffffff8139d66c>] selinux_set_mnt_opts+0x35c/0x660 > [<ffffffff8139ff97>] superblock_doinit+0x77/0xf0 > [<ffffffff813a0020>] delayed_superblock_init+0x10/0x20 > [<ffffffff81272d23>] iterate_supers+0xb3/0x110 > [<ffffffff813a4e5f>] selinux_complete_init+0x2f/0x40 > [<ffffffff813b47a3>] security_load_policy+0x103/0x600 > [<ffffffff813a6901>] sel_write_load+0xc1/0x750 > [<ffffffff8126e817>] __vfs_write+0x37/0x100 > [<ffffffff8126f229>] vfs_write+0xa9/0x1a0 > [<ffffffff8126ff48>] SyS_write+0x58/0xd0 > [<ffffffff81871d2e>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76 > [<ffffffff81109a07>] lock_acquire+0xc7/0x270 > [<ffffffff8186de8f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x7f/0x3e0 > [<ffffffff8139b9a9>] inode_doinit_with_dentry+0xb9/0x670 > [<ffffffff8139bf7c>] selinux_d_instantiate+0x1c/0x20 > [<ffffffff813955f6>] security_d_instantiate+0x36/0x60 > [<ffffffff81287c34>] d_instantiate+0x54/0x70 > [<ffffffff8120111c>] __shmem_file_setup+0xdc/0x240 > [<ffffffff81201290>] shmem_file_setup+0x10/0x20 > [<ffffffff813856e0>] newseg+0x290/0x3a0 > [<ffffffff8137e278>] ipcget+0x208/0x2d0 > [<ffffffff81386074>] SyS_shmget+0x54/0x70 > [<ffffffff81871d2e>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76 > [<ffffffff81108df8>] __lock_acquire+0x1a78/0x1d00 > [<ffffffff81109a07>] lock_acquire+0xc7/0x270 > [<ffffffff8186efba>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 > [<ffffffff81385354>] shm_close+0x34/0x130 > [<ffffffff812203a5>] remove_vma+0x45/0x80 > [<ffffffff81222a30>] do_munmap+0x2b0/0x460 > [<ffffffff81386c25>] SyS_shmdt+0xb5/0x180 > [<ffffffff81871d2e>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x76 That's a completely screwed up stack trace. There are *4* syscall entry points with 4 separate, unrelated syscall chains on that stack trace, all starting at the same address. How is this a valid stack trace and not a lockdep bug of some kind? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>