| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6278d2220808291457p50f8f24w3de3a5623acc37a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:57:29 +0100
From: "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, clameter@....com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bunk@...nel.org, protasnb@...il.com,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugobjects: fix lockdep warning #2
Hi Andrew, Vegard, Ingo,
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:32:14 +0200
> Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> > could you resend the final patch please? It's a candidate for .27, if it
>> > works out fine.
>>
>> Here is the combined patch. I've tested it only briefly, and I am
>> unsure of whether it still produces lockdep warnings for Daniel or
>> not. I wish it would not be applied anywhere unless it was
>> officially Reviewed-by: someone. In particular, I'm not quite
>> steady with the irq-safe locking (Thomas might want to have a look).
>>
>
> It all looks good to me.
>
>>
>>
>> >From 977cf583b79be7308d5e310711fe6038c8af96a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:09:57 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] debugobjects: fix lockdep warning #2
>>
>> Daniel J. Blueman reported:
>> > =======================================================
>> > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> > 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
>> > -------------------------------------------------------
>> > hald/4680 is trying to acquire lock:
>> > (&n->list_lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff802bfa26>] add_partial+0x26/0x80
>> >
>> > but task is already holding lock:
>> > (&obj_hash[i].lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff8041cfdc>]
>> > debug_object_free+0x5c/0x120
>>
>> We fix it by moving the actual freeing to outside the lock (the lock
>> now only protects the list).
>>
>> The lock is also promoted to irq-safe (suggested by Dan).
>
> What was the reason for this other change? I'm sure Dan is a fine chap,
> but we usually prefer a little more justification for changes ;)
IRQ-safe xtime_lock is taken, then pool_lock is taken in
__debug_object_init, which is potentially unsafe. Upgrading
pool_lock's usage to IRQ-safe ensures there can be no potential for
deadlock.
>> Reported-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
>> ---
>> lib/debugobjects.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> index 19acf8c..acf9ed8 100644
>> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
>> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> @@ -115,9 +115,10 @@ static struct debug_obj *lookup_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b)
>> static struct debug_obj *
>> alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
>> {
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> struct debug_obj *obj = NULL;
>>
>> - spin_lock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
>> if (obj_pool.first) {
>> obj = hlist_entry(obj_pool.first, typeof(*obj), node);
>>
>> @@ -136,7 +137,7 @@ alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
>> if (obj_pool_free < obj_pool_min_free)
>> obj_pool_min_free = obj_pool_free;
>> }
>> - spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool_lock, flags);
>>
>> return obj;
>> }
>> @@ -146,18 +147,19 @@ alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
>> */
>> static void free_object(struct debug_obj *obj)
>> {
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> unsigned long idx = (unsigned long)(obj - obj_static_pool);
>>
>> if (obj_pool_free < ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE || idx < ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE) {
>> - spin_lock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
>> hlist_add_head(&obj->node, &obj_pool);
>> obj_pool_free++;
>> obj_pool_used--;
>> - spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool_lock, flags);
>> } else {
>> - spin_lock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&pool_lock, flags);
>> obj_pool_used--;
>> - spin_unlock(&pool_lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pool_lock, flags);
>> kmem_cache_free(obj_cache, obj);
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -170,19 +172,28 @@ static void debug_objects_oom(void)
>> {
>> struct debug_bucket *db = obj_hash;
>> struct hlist_node *node, *tmp;
>> + HLIST_HEAD(freelist);
>> struct debug_obj *obj;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> int i;
>>
>> printk(KERN_WARNING "ODEBUG: Out of memory. ODEBUG disabled\n");
>>
>> + /* XXX: Could probably be optimized by transplantation of more than
>> + * one entry at a time. */
>> for (i = 0; i < ODEBUG_HASH_SIZE; i++, db++) {
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&db->lock, flags);
>> hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &db->list, node) {
>> hlist_del(&obj->node);
>> - free_object(obj);
>> + hlist_add_head(&obj->node, &freelist);
>> }
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&db->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + /* Now free them */
>> + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
>> + hlist_del(&obj->node);
>> + free_object(obj);
>
> I suspect that we can avoid the hlist_del() here, perhaps with a little
> effort.
>
>> +
>> + /* Now free them */
>> + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(obj, node, tmp, &freelist, node) {
>> + hlist_del(&obj->node);
>> + free_object(obj);
>> + }
>> +
>
> and the other one.
>
> But I'm not sure that it's worth putting effort into - leaving dead
> objects strung onto a partially-live list is a little bit smelly IMO.
I've done some fairly heavy testing with the patch at it's current
state (ie with the upgraded pool_lock, explained above), and it _is_
in fact solid; I wasn't looking at the right setup previously.
(with the other XFS tweaks too) I'm not able to cause any
deadlocks/stack traces/warnings with maximum debugging [* the KVM
errors are another story], which would be the first time so far, so
the patch looks good for mainline and 2.6.27 is looking very strong!
Daniel
--- [*]
emulation failed (pagetable) rip bf9032c5 0f 6f 17 0f
__ratelimit: 1804664 callbacks suppressed
Fail to handle apic access vmexit! Offset is 0xf0
--
Daniel J Blueman
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists