linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc1-mm1

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]

Message-ID: <6bffcb0e0610110348i1d3fc15qa0c57a6586aca3e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:48:20 +0200
From:	"Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
To:	"Neil Brown" <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1-mm1

On 11/10/06, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday October 10, michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com wrote:
> > On 10/10/06, Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 10/10/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.19-rc1/2.6.19-rc1-mm1/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Kernel 2.6.19-rc1-mm1 + Neil's avoid_lockdep_warning_in_md.patch
> > > (http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0610.1/0642.html)
> > >
> > > (I'll try to reproduce this without Neil's patch).
> >
> > I can't reproduce this without Neil's patch.
> >
>
> Despite this circumstantial evidence, I don't see how my patch could
> possible have an effect here....
>
> Looking at the code, starting at _cpu_down in the CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> case, the call notifier chain 'cpu_chain' contains
> workqueue_cpu_callback which does 'mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex)' in
> the "DOWN_PREPARE" case and mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex) in the
> DOWN_FAILED and DEAD cases.
>
> blocking_notifier_call_chain is
>         down_read(&nh->rwsem);
>         ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v);
>         up_read(&nh->rwsem);
>
> and so holds ->rwsem while calling the callback.
> So the locking sequence ends up as:
>
>  down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
>  mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
>  up_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
>
>  down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem);
>  mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
>  up_read(&workqueue_mutex);
>
> and lockdep doesn't seem to like this.  It sees workqueue_mutex
> claimed while cpu_chain.rwsem is held. and then it sees
> cpu_chain.rwsem claimed while workqueue_mutex is held, which looks a
> bit like a class ABBA deadlock.
> Of course because it is a 'down_read' rather than a 'down', it isn't
> really a dead lock.
>
> I don't know how to tell lockdep to do the right thing, but I'll leave
> that up to Ingo et al.
>
> Why it didn't trigger without my patch I cannot imagine.  Are you sure
> the config was identical (you didn't remove CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU or
> anything did you?).

No, I didn't remove CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU or anything else.

I didn't do enough testing - only a few hibernatins.

>
> NeilBrown
>

Regards,
Michal

-- 
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/)
-
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/