linux-kernel - Re: irq lock inversion

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: <4AF3D428.8000804@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:45:44 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq lock inversion

Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> This warning is bogus -- sched_init() is being called very early with IRQs
>>> disabled, and the irqsave/restore code paths in pcpu_alloc() are only for early
>>> init. The path can never be called from irq context once the early init
>>> finishes. Rationale for this is explained in changelog of the commit mentioned
>>> above.
>>>
>>> This problem can be encountered generally in any other early code running
>>> with IRQs off and using irqsave/irqrestore.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
>> Looks good to me.  Ingo, what do you think?
> 
> Ugh, this explanation is _BOGUS_. As i said, taking a lock with irqs 
> disabled does _NOT_ mark a lock as 'irq safe' - if it did, we'd have 
> false positives left and right.
> 
> Read the lockdep message please, consider all the backtraces it prints, 
> it says something different.

Ah... okay, the pcpu_free() path is correctly marking the lock
irqsafe.  I assumed this was caused by recent pcpu_alloc() change.
Sorry about that.  The lock inversion problem has always been there,
it just never showed up because none has use allocation map that large
I suppose.

So, the correct fix would be either 1. push down irqsafeness down to
vmalloc locks or 2. the rather ugly unlock-lock dancing in
pcpu_extend_area_map() I posted earlier.  For 2.6.32, I guess we'll
have to go with #2.  For longer term, we'll probably have to do #1 as
it's required to implement atomic percpu allocations too.

I'll try to reproduce the problem here and verify the previous locking
dance patch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/