linux-kernel - Re: lockdep WARNING in get_online

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:	Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:01:43 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep WARNING in get_online_cpus

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 10:19:05AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> 
> This happens in CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP code. Is it a bug in lockdep?

We hope not; but it is a new test.

So lockdep needs to check each current lock stack against the recorded
lock dependencies to see if we've gotten ourselves a cycle. Doing this
check is _expensive_.

So what lockdep does is it computes a hash for each lock stack and only
if we've not seen this hash before (actually truncated since we don't
have a full 64bit hashtable) do we go look for cycles.

The new check tries to detect hash-collisions in this cache. A collision
would result in not checking for cycles, even if we've not seen the
stack before.

You've managed to tickle this.

Now, last week I found some bugs in there, and Alfredo added a pretty
printer, so maybe try and add these patches to your testing?

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git locking/urgent

> But I always see at the same stack involving perf and jump_label...

So you have a simple reproducer? So that I can have a go at this.