linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep

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: <20070705143217.GA170@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:32:17 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: debug flushing deadlocks with lockdep

On 07/05, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> @@ -257,7 +261,9 @@ static void run_workqueue(struct cpu_wor
>  
>  		BUG_ON(get_wq_data(work) != cwq);
>  		work_clear_pending(work);
> +		lock_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map, 0, 0, 0, 2, _THIS_IP_);
>  		f(work);
> +		lock_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);

Johannes, my apologies. You were worried about recursion, and you were right,
sorry!

Currently it is allowed that work->func() does flush_workqueue() on its own
workqueue. So we have

	run_workqueue()
		work->func()
			flush_workqueue()
				run_workqueue()

All but work->func() take wq->lockdep_map, I guess check_deadlock() won't be
happy.

In your initial patch, wq->lockdep_map was taken in flush_cpu_workqueue() when
cwq->thread != current, but this is still not enough. Because we take the same
lock when flush_workqueue() does flush_cpu_workqueue() on another CPU.

run_workqueue() is easy, it can check cwq->run_depth == 1 before lock/unlock.

Anybody sees a simple soultion? Perhaps, some clever trick with LOCKDEP ?

OTOH. Perhaps we can can forbid such a behaviour? Andrew, do you know any
good example of "keventd trying to flush its own queue" ?

In any case, I think both patches are great, thanks for doing this!

Oleg.

-
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/