linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache

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, 28 Jul 2006 19:14:19 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, alokk@...softinc.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free


> cache_free_alien could get called, but there is no recursion here:
> 
> 1. reap_alien tries dropping remote objects freed by local node (A) to the 
> remote node (B) shared array cache (choosing a remote node as indicated by the 
> node rotor), to do this, it takes the local alien cache lock (A), and calls 
> __drain_alien_cache. The remote object comes from a slab cache X say.
> 
> 2. __drain_alien_cache. takes the remote node l3 lock (B), transfers as many
> objects as shared array cache of the remote node can hold, and calls
> free_block to free remaining objects that could not be dropped in into the
> shared array cache of remote node (B).  Now free_block is being called from
> (A) to free objects on (B). 
> 
> 3. free_block calls slab_destroy for the slab belonging to B. calls
> kmem_cache_free for the slab management, which calls __cache_free, and 
> hence cache_free_alien().  Now since this is being called from A for a local
> object of B, the check in cache_free_alien fails, and cache_free_alien
> *does* get executed.  Since slab management of a slab from B, local to B is
> freed from A, A tries to write to the local alien cache corresponding to B,
> which comes from a slab cache Y.  There is a recursion if X and Y are the
> same caches.   But that is not a possibility at all, as the off slab management
> for a slab cache cannot come from the same slab cache.  So this looks like a
> false positive from lockdep.  
actually lockdep doesn't see normal slabs and the slabs where off-slab
management comes from as the same lock, so it really shouldn't complain
about this specific case.


-
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/