From: Gaosheng Cui <hidden> Date: 2026-07-28 12:36:23
When hashing large files, the while loop in ima_calc_file_hash_tfm
processes PAGE_SIZE chunks without any scheduling point, which can
cause soft lockup warnings:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 50s!
Call Trace:
_sha256_update+0x12d/0x1a0
ima_calc_file_hash_tfm+0xfb/0x150
ima_calc_file_hash+0x6e/0x160
ima_collect_measurement+0x202/0x340
process_measurement+0x3a9/0xb30
ima_file_check+0x56/0xa0
do_open+0x11b/0x250
path_openat+0x10b/0x1d0
do_filp_open+0xa9/0x150
do_sys_openat2+0x223/0x2a0
__x64_sys_openat+0x54/0xa0
do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
Call cond_resched() every 4MB to yield the CPU when needed, rather
than at every loop iteration, to reduce overhead.
Using IS_ALIGNED(offset, SZ_4M) to trigger cond_resched() is fragile
because integrity_kernel_read() -> __kernel_read() can return fewer
bytes than requested (short read). Short reads can occur across
various filesystems — while common on remote (NFS, CIFS) and FUSE
filesystems, they are also possible in edge cases on local
filesystems (e.g., reading near EOF). Once a short read occurs,
the offset becomes permanently misaligned and cond_resched() may
never be called again for the remainder of the file. Replace the
alignment check with a cumulative byte counter that tracks the
actual data hashed since the last reschedule point, which is robust
regardless of short read behavior.
Fixes: 3323eec921ef ("integrity: IMA as an integrity service provider")
Signed-off-by: Gaosheng Cui <redacted>
---
security/integrity/ima/ima_crypto.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Date: 2026-07-28 17:14:16
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 08:33:50PM +0800, Gaosheng Cui wrote:
When hashing large files, the while loop in ima_calc_file_hash_tfm
processes PAGE_SIZE chunks without any scheduling point, which can
cause soft lockup warnings:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 50s!
Call Trace:
_sha256_update+0x12d/0x1a0
ima_calc_file_hash_tfm+0xfb/0x150
ima_calc_file_hash+0x6e/0x160
ima_collect_measurement+0x202/0x340
process_measurement+0x3a9/0xb30
ima_file_check+0x56/0xa0
do_open+0x11b/0x250
path_openat+0x10b/0x1d0
do_filp_open+0xa9/0x150
do_sys_openat2+0x223/0x2a0
__x64_sys_openat+0x54/0xa0
do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
Call cond_resched() every 4MB to yield the CPU when needed, rather
than at every loop iteration, to reduce overhead.
Using IS_ALIGNED(offset, SZ_4M) to trigger cond_resched() is fragile
because integrity_kernel_read() -> __kernel_read() can return fewer
bytes than requested (short read). Short reads can occur across
various filesystems — while common on remote (NFS, CIFS) and FUSE
filesystems, they are also possible in edge cases on local
filesystems (e.g., reading near EOF). Once a short read occurs,
the offset becomes permanently misaligned and cond_resched() may
never be called again for the remainder of the file. Replace the
alignment check with a cumulative byte counter that tracks the
actual data hashed since the last reschedule point, which is robust
regardless of short read behavior.
Fixes: 3323eec921ef ("integrity: IMA as an integrity service provider")
Signed-off-by: Gaosheng Cui <redacted>
Which architecture are you seeing this issue on, and which kernel
version? In current mainline, most architectures (x86, arm64,
loongarch, riscv, s390) offer only lazy preemption and full preemption.
In all these cases, cond_resched() is obsolete and unnecessary.
I understand the concept of cond_resched() as a whole is on its way out.
It is an approach that has never worked well.
Is it possible that you're seeing this issue only on an older kernel
version and not mainline?
- Eric
On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 08:33:50PM +0800, Gaosheng Cui wrote:
quoted
When hashing large files, the while loop in ima_calc_file_hash_tfm
processes PAGE_SIZE chunks without any scheduling point, which can
cause soft lockup warnings:
watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 50s!
Call Trace:
_sha256_update+0x12d/0x1a0
ima_calc_file_hash_tfm+0xfb/0x150
ima_calc_file_hash+0x6e/0x160
ima_collect_measurement+0x202/0x340
process_measurement+0x3a9/0xb30
ima_file_check+0x56/0xa0
do_open+0x11b/0x250
path_openat+0x10b/0x1d0
do_filp_open+0xa9/0x150
do_sys_openat2+0x223/0x2a0
__x64_sys_openat+0x54/0xa0
do_syscall_64+0x59/0x110
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x78/0xe2
Call cond_resched() every 4MB to yield the CPU when needed, rather
than at every loop iteration, to reduce overhead.
Using IS_ALIGNED(offset, SZ_4M) to trigger cond_resched() is fragile
because integrity_kernel_read() -> __kernel_read() can return fewer
bytes than requested (short read). Short reads can occur across
various filesystems — while common on remote (NFS, CIFS) and FUSE
filesystems, they are also possible in edge cases on local
filesystems (e.g., reading near EOF). Once a short read occurs,
the offset becomes permanently misaligned and cond_resched() may
never be called again for the remainder of the file. Replace the
alignment check with a cumulative byte counter that tracks the
actual data hashed since the last reschedule point, which is robust
regardless of short read behavior.
Fixes: 3323eec921ef ("integrity: IMA as an integrity service provider")
Signed-off-by: Gaosheng Cui <redacted>
Which architecture are you seeing this issue on, and which kernel
version? In current mainline, most architectures (x86, arm64,
loongarch, riscv, s390) offer only lazy preemption and full preemption.
In all these cases, cond_resched() is obsolete and unnecessary.
I understand the concept of cond_resched() as a whole is on its way out.
It is an approach that has never worked well.
Is it possible that you're seeing this issue only on an older kernel
version and not mainline?
- Eric
.
Thanks for the clarification and the context on the preemption model direction.
I encountered this soft lockup on the 6.6 stable kernel with PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
(arm64 and x86_64), where ima_calc_file_hash_tfm() can spin for tens of seconds
on large files without any preemption point, starving the watchdog's migration thread.
I verified on linux-next 7.2.0-rc4 (x86_64, PREEMPT_LAZY) that the issue is not
reproducible, so mainline does not need this fix.
Thank you for the insight.