linux-kernel - check_usage_backwards() && forwards? (Was: [2.6.33-rc5] starting emacs makes lockdep warning)

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

Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:16:41 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: check_usage_backwards() && forwards? (Was: [2.6.33-rc5] starting
	emacs makes lockdep warning)

(add  lockdep gurus)

Lockdep has found the real bug, but the output doesn't look right to me

On 01/26, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> =========================================================
> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> 2.6.33-rc5 #77
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> emacs/1609 just changed the state of lock:
>  (&(&tty->ctrl_lock)->rlock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8127c648>] tty_fasync+0xe8/0x190
> but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
>  (&(&sighand->siglock)->rlock){-.....}

"HARDIRQ-unsafe" and "this lock took another" looks wrong, afaics.

>   ... key      at: [<ffffffff81c054a4>] __key.46539+0x0/0x8
>   ... acquired at:
>    [<ffffffff81089af6>] __lock_acquire+0x1056/0x15a0
>    [<ffffffff8108a0df>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0x120
>    [<ffffffff81423012>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x52/0x90
>    [<ffffffff8127c1be>] __proc_set_tty+0x3e/0x150
>    [<ffffffff8127e01d>] tty_open+0x51d/0x5e0

The stack-trace shows that this lock (ctrl_lock) was taken under
->siglock (which is hopefully irq-safe).

Typo in check_usage_backwards() ?

Oleg.

--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -2147,7 +2147,7 @@ check_usage_backwards(struct task_struct
 		return ret;
 
 	return print_irq_inversion_bug(curr, &root, target_entry,
-					this, 1, irqclass);
+					this, 0, irqclass);
 }
 
 void print_irqtrace_events(struct task_struct *curr)

--
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/