linux-kernel - [PATCH] lockdep: fix mismatched lockdep_depth/curr_chain

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:22 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: fix mismatched lockdep_depth/curr_chain_hash

Ouch!

Thanks Gregory for finding this!

I'll send your initial patch to the stable team for .22.

---
Subject: lockdep: fix mismatched lockdep_depth/curr_chain_hash
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>

It is possible for the current->curr_chain_key to become inconsistent with the
current index if the chain fails to validate.  The end result is that future
lock_acquire() operations may inadvertently fail to find a hit in the cache
resulting in a new node being added to the graph for every acquire.

[ peterz: this might explain some of the lockdep is so _slow_ complaints. ]
[ mingo: this does not impact the correctness of validation, but may slow
  down future operations significantly, if the chain gets very long. ]

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
 kernel/lockdep.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1521,7 +1521,7 @@ cache_hit:
 }
 
 static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr, struct lockdep_map *lock,
-	       	struct held_lock *hlock, int chain_head)
+	       	struct held_lock *hlock, int chain_head, u64 chain_key)
 {
 	/*
 	 * Trylock needs to maintain the stack of held locks, but it
@@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_st
 	 * graph_lock for us)
 	 */
 	if (!hlock->trylock && (hlock->check == 2) &&
-			lookup_chain_cache(curr->curr_chain_key, hlock->class)) {
+			lookup_chain_cache(chain_key, hlock->class)) {
 		/*
 		 * Check whether last held lock:
 		 *
@@ -1576,7 +1576,7 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_st
 #else
 static inline int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
 	       	struct lockdep_map *lock, struct held_lock *hlock,
-		int chain_head)
+		int chain_head, u64 chain_key)
 {
 	return 1;
 }
@@ -2450,11 +2450,11 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep
 		chain_head = 1;
 	}
 	chain_key = iterate_chain_key(chain_key, id);
-	curr->curr_chain_key = chain_key;
 
-	if (!validate_chain(curr, lock, hlock, chain_head))
+	if (!validate_chain(curr, lock, hlock, chain_head, chain_key))
 		return 0;
 
+	curr->curr_chain_key = chain_key;
 	curr->lockdep_depth++;
 	check_chain_key(curr);
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP


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