Re: [RFC] situation with fput() locking (was Re: [PULL REQUEST] :ima-appraisal patches)

From: Al Viro
Date: Thu Apr 19 2012 - 23:15:57 EST


On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:54:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> and filp_close() would, if that turns out to be possible, call fput_nodefer()
> instead of fput(). If we *do* have places where we need deferral in
> filp_close() (and I'm fairly sure that any such place is a deadlock right
> now), well, we'll need a variant of filp_close() sans the call of fput...()
> and those places would call that, followed by full (deferring) fput().

BTW, some of those filp_close() are simply wrong - e.g. a big pile in
drivers/media/video/cx25821/*.c should be fput().

And yes, we have at least some under mutex - binder_lock held by
binder_ioctl(), which ends up doing binder_transaction() with its
failure cleanup hitting close_filp(). On an arbitrary struct file.
It *probably* doesn't deadlock on the spot, since binder_release()
itself contains a deferral mechanism (perhaps they'd spotted the
deadlock, perhaps there are other reasons to have it).
--
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/