linux-kernel - Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)

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:	Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:16:25 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>
Cc:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>
Subject: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)


On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 00:02 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> > > What specifically is wrong with dev->sem ?
> >
> > Nothing really, other than that they use semaphores to avoid lockdep :-/
> >
> > I think I know how to annotate this, after Alan Stern explained all the
> > use cases, but I haven't come around to implementing it. Hope to do that
> > soonish.
> 
> I was looking for an easy semaphore I could convert to a mutex, and I
> ran into one that was widely spread and interesting, and which seemed
> quite doable at first sight.
> So, I started working on it, but was forgotten this discussion, (until
> Daniel made me remember it this afternoon). So, I (stupid me ;-) )
> tried to convert dev->sem...
> 
> After doing the monkey part of the conversion I can boot the kernel
> completely on X86 and ARM, and everything works fine, except after
> enabling lockdep, lockdep starts complaining...
> 
> Is this the problem you were pointing at?

Yeah, one of the interesting nestings :-)

> I tried debugging it, and I have not found a recursive mutex locking
> so far, only locking of 2 different mutexes in a row prior to this
> warning, which IMO should be valid.
> 
> What is your opinion?

Yeah, the locking is all valid afaics, its just that it needs some
interesting annotations to make lockdep see it that way.

> BTW: I attached my patch for dev->sem as I have it now, that generates
> this lockdep warning ( for if you want to look at it yourself also, so
> you do not have to do the monkey part yourself anymore ;-)

I have a similar patch floating around, but thanks anyway :-)

--
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/