linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy

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: <4BB420D6.7050401@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:28:06 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to	destroy_workqueue()

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 04/01/2010 01:09 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> This seems to be from the original thread of frame#3.  It's grabbing
>>> wq lock here but the problem is that the lock will be released
>>> immediately, so bond_dev->name (the wq) can't be held by the time it
>>> reaches frame#3.  How is this dependency chain completed?  Is it
>>> somehow transitive through rtnl_mutex?
>> wq lock is held *after* cpu_add_remove_lock, lockdep also said this,
>> the process is trying to hold wq lock while having cpu_add_remove_lock.
> 
> Yeah yeah, I'm just failing to see how the other direction is
> completed.  ie. where does the kernel try to grab cpu_add_remove_lock
> *after* grabbing wq lock?
> 
>>> Isn't there a circular dependency here?  bonding_exit() calls
>>> destroy_workqueue() under rtnl_mutex but destroy_workqueue() should
>>> flush works which could be trying to grab rtnl_lock.  Or am I
>>> completely misunderstanding locking here?
>> Sure, that is why I sent another patch for bonding. :)
> 
> Ah... great.  :-)
> 
>> After this patch, another lockdep warning appears, it is exactly what
>> you expect.
> 
> Hmmm... can you please try to see whether this circular locking
> warning involving wq->lockdep_map is reproducible w/ the bonding
> locking fixed?  I still can't see where wq -> cpu_add_remove_lock
> dependency is created.
> 

I thought this is obvious.

Here it is:

void destroy_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
{
         const struct cpumask *cpu_map = wq_cpu_map(wq);
         int cpu;

         cpu_maps_update_begin();        <----------------- Hold cpu_add_remove_lock here
         spin_lock(&workqueue_lock);
         list_del(&wq->list);
         spin_unlock(&workqueue_lock);

         for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_map)
                 cleanup_workqueue_thread(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, cpu));  <------ See below
         cpu_maps_update_done();        <----------------- Release cpu_add_remove_lock here

...
static void cleanup_workqueue_thread(struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq)
{
         /*
          * Our caller is either destroy_workqueue() or CPU_POST_DEAD,
          * cpu_add_remove_lock protects cwq->thread.
          */
         if (cwq->thread == NULL)
                 return;

         lock_map_acquire(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map); <-------------- Lockdep complains here.
         lock_map_release(&cwq->wq->lockdep_map);
...

Am I missing something??

Thanks.
--
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/