linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc6: possible recursive locking detected

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: <20080107172239.GA14880@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:22:39 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc6: possible recursive locking detected

On 01/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Since EP_MAX_POLLWAKE_NESTS < MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES we could perhaps do
> something like:
>
>   wake_up_nested(..., wake_nests);

I think this would be the most correct change. But I wonder if it is possible
to do something more generic (but otoh more stupid/hackish and less safe).

Consider this "just for illustration" patch,

--- t/kernel/lockdep.c	2007-11-09 12:57:31.000000000 +0300
+++ t/kernel/lockdep.c	2008-01-07 19:43:50.000000000 +0300
@@ -1266,10 +1266,13 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr,
 	struct held_lock *prev;
 	int i;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < curr->lockdep_depth; i++) {
+	for (i = curr->lockdep_depth; --i >= 0; ) {
 		prev = curr->held_locks + i;
 		if (prev->class != next->class)
 			continue;
+
+		if (prev->trylock == -1)
+			return 2;
 		/*
 		 * Allow read-after-read recursion of the same
 		 * lock class (i.e. read_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now,

	// trylock == -1
	#define	spin_mark_nested(l)	\
		lock_acquire(&(l)->dep_map, 0, -1, 0, 2, _THIS_IP_)
	#define	spin_unmark_nested(l)	\
		lock_release(&(l)->dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_)

and ep_poll_safewake() can do:

	/* Do really wake up now */
	spin_mark_nested(&wq->lock);
	wake_up(wq);
	spin_unmark_nested(&wq->lock);

Possible?

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/