linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2]

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:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:58:00 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
 to use function calls [POST 2]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> I think this might be a spurious "holding multiple locks in the same 
>> class" bug.  All the queue locks are presumably in the same class, and 
>> ipi_call_lock_irq() wants to hold them all to lock out any IPIs. 
>> Spurious because this is the only place which holds more than one 
>> queue lock, and it always locks 0->N.
>>
>> I guess the fix is to use an outer lock and use spin_lock_nested() 
>> (now that it exists).  Something along these lines?
>>     
>
> this is not a good idea:
>
>   
>> +/* Hold queues_lock when taking more than one queue[].lock at once */
>> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(queues_lock);
>>     
>
> because it adds an artificial extra spinlock for no good reason and 
> weakens the lock dependency checking as well.
>
> Just add a lock class descriptor to each call_function_queue lock, so 
> that lockdep can see that it's truly all in the correct order.
>
> I.e. dont turn lockdep off artificially.

Are you sure?  I thought this is exactly the case where
spin_lock_nest_lock() is supposed to be used?  Admittedly it's very
simple, but the extra lock does two things: 1) it guarantees that the
queue locks can be taken in any order, and 2) it's a single lock on
which we can do spin_lock_irq(), rather than doing it in the loop for
each individual lock (which I think was bogus).

I don't see how it weakens lockdep in any way.  Does it hide any
potential lock misuse?

    J

--
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/