linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.0-rt4

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:	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:55:37 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, cl@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.0-rt4

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 23:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 12:16 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > [    0.000000] =============================================
> > [    0.000000] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > [    0.000000] 3.0.0-1.rt5.1.fc15.ccrma.i686.rtPAE #1
> > [    0.000000] ---------------------------------------------
> > [    0.000000] swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [    0.000000]  (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fb406>] __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000] but task is already holding lock:
> > [    0.000000]  (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fc538>] do_tune_cpucache+0xf2/0x2bb
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [    0.000000]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000]        CPU0
> > [    0.000000]        ----
> > [    0.000000]   lock(&parent->list_lock);
> > [    0.000000]   lock(&parent->list_lock);
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000] 3 locks held by swapper/0:
> > [    0.000000]  #0:  (cache_chain_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0bd9d2b>] kmem_cache_init_late+0xe/0x61
> > [    0.000000]  #1:  (&per_cpu(slab_lock, __cpu).lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04faa65>] __local_lock_irq+0x1e/0x5b
> > [    0.000000]  #2:  (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fc538>] do_tune_cpucache+0xf2/0x2bb
> > [    0.000000]
> > [    0.000000] stack backtrace:
> > [    0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.0.0-1.rt5.1.fc15.ccrma.i686.rtPAE #1
> > [    0.000000] Call Trace:
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0856355>] ? printk+0x2d/0x2f
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0474a4b>] __lock_acquire+0x805/0xb57
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0472604>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.10+0x4b/0x51
> > [    0.000000]  [<c085ecb4>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x31/0x3d
> > [    0.000000]  [<c085dbc5>] ? rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x75/0x190
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04720c3>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0475215>] lock_acquire+0xde/0x11d
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
> > [    0.000000]  [<c085e24f>] rt_spin_lock+0x50/0x56
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb406>] __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
> > [    0.000000]  [<c043646d>] ? test_ti_thread_flag+0x8/0x10
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb23f>] kmem_cache_free+0x6c/0xdc
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb2fe>] slab_destroy+0x4f/0x53
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fb396>] free_block+0x94/0xc1
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fc551>] do_tune_cpucache+0x10b/0x2bb
> > [    0.000000]  [<c04fc8dc>] enable_cpucache+0x7b/0xa7
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0bd9d3c>] kmem_cache_init_late+0x1f/0x61
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0bba687>] start_kernel+0x24c/0x363
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0bba1c4>] ? loglevel+0x18/0x18
> > [    0.000000]  [<c0bba0ba>] i386_start_kernel+0xa9/0xaf 
> 
> Ooh, fun.. one does wonder why mainline doesn't show this..
> 
> This is the normal OFF_SLAB recursion, and the reason this shows up is
> because this is ran before we do the lockdep fixup.
> 
> Fernando, does something like the below (not actually against -rt, but
> it shouldn't matter much) fix things?
> 
> ---
> Subject: slab, lockdep: Annotate the locks before using
> 
> Fernando found we hit the regular OFF_SLAB 'recursion' before we
> annotate the locks, cure this.
> 
> Reported-by: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>

If you want to pick this up in the lockdep tree:

Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>

> ---
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slab.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slab.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slab.c
> @@ -1665,6 +1665,9 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init_late(void)
>  {
>  	struct kmem_cache *cachep;
>  
> +	/* Annotate slab for lockdep -- annotate the malloc caches */
> +	init_lock_keys();
> +
>  	/* 6) resize the head arrays to their final sizes */
>  	mutex_lock(&cache_chain_mutex);
>  	list_for_each_entry(cachep, &cache_chain, next)
> @@ -1675,9 +1678,6 @@ void __init kmem_cache_init_late(void)
>  	/* Done! */
>  	g_cpucache_up = FULL;
>  
> -	/* Annotate slab for lockdep -- annotate the malloc caches */
> -	init_lock_keys();
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Register a cpu startup notifier callback that initializes
>  	 * cpu_cache_get for all new cpus
> 
> 


--
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/