linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH 01/11] kernel:lockdep:print the shortest dependency chain if finding a circle

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:	Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:14:58 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 01/11] kernel:lockdep:print the shortest
 dependency chain if finding a circle

On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 09:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> It's a nice byproduct, beyond the primary advantage of not being a 
> stack based recursion check.
> 
> I think this patch-set is great, and there's just one more step 
> needed to make it round: it would be nice to remove the limitation 
> of maximum number of locks held per task. (MAX_LOCK_DEPTH)
> 
> The way we could do it is to split out this bit of struct task:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> # define MAX_LOCK_DEPTH 48UL
>         u64 curr_chain_key;
>         int lockdep_depth;
>         unsigned int lockdep_recursion;
>         struct held_lock held_locks[MAX_LOCK_DEPTH];
>         gfp_t lockdep_reclaim_gfp;
> #endif
> 
> into a separate 'struct lockdep_state' structure, and allocate it 
> dynamically during fork with a initial pre-set size of say 64 locks 
> depth. If we hit that limit, we'd double the allocation threshold, 
> which would cause a larger structure to be allocated for all newly 
> allocated tasks.

Right, except allocating stuff while in the middle of lockdep is very
hard since it involves taking more locks :-)

I've tried it several times but never quite managed it in a way that I
felt comfortable with.

It would require having a reserve and serializing over that reserve.

--
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/