linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc9 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency 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: <20080414154642.GA30018@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:16:42 +0530
From:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc9 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency
	detected

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:19:46PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:18:01PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 02:42:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> While you're fixing the cpu hotplug stuff anyway, there's still a bug
> present in a few modules init code:
> 
> Usually they do something like:
> 
> 	register_hotcpu_notifier(...);
> 	for_each_online_cpu(i)
> 		...
> 
> A module's init functions gets called from sys_init_module and there is nothing
> that would protect from cpu hotplug.
> Therefore the sequence of for_each_online_cpu() and register_hotcpu_notifier()
> better should be protected by a surrounding get/put_online_cpus() like this:
> 
> 	get_online_cpus();
> 	register_hotcpu_notifier(...);
> 	for_each_online_cpu(i)
> 		...
> 	put_online_cpus();

But shouldn't this be:
	register_hotcpu_notifier(...);
	get_online_cpus();
	for_each_online_cpus()
		...
	put_online_cpus();

What's the problem with this ordering?

> 
> But as far as I can see that can lead to a deadlock if e.g. cpu 0 would
> execute the code above whild cpu 1 is executing some cpu hotplug code:
> 
> cpu0: get_online_cpus()
>        -> increase cpu_hotplug.refcount
> cpu1: cpu_down()
>        -> cpu_maps_update_begin()
>        -> grab cpu_add_remove_lock
>        -> wait for cpu_hotplug.refcount to drop to zero again
> cpu0: register_hotcpu_notifier()
>        -> cpu_maps_update_begin
>        -> tries to grab cpu_add_remove_lock that cpu 1 holds already
>           -> dead

-- 
Thanks and Regards
gautham
--
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/