| 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: <tip-f4185812aa046ecb97e8817e10148cacdd7a6baa@git.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:20:00 GMT
From: tip-bot for Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
fweisbec@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
srostedt@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: [tip:core/locking] lockdep: Print a nicer description for normal deadlocks
Commit-ID: f4185812aa046ecb97e8817e10148cacdd7a6baa
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/f4185812aa046ecb97e8817e10148cacdd7a6baa
Author: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:41:55 -0400
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CommitDate: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:06:57 +0200
lockdep: Print a nicer description for normal deadlocks
The lockdep output can be pretty cryptic, having nicer output
can save a lot of head scratching. When a normal deadlock
scenario is detected by lockdep (lock A -> lock B and there
exists a place where lock B -> lock A) we now get the following
new output:
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(lockB);
lock(lockA);
lock(lockB);
lock(lockA);
*** DEADLOCK ***
On cases where there's a deeper chair, it shows the partial
chain that can cause the issue:
Chain exists of:
lockC --> lockA --> lockB
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(lockB);
lock(lockA);
lock(lockB);
lock(lockC);
*** DEADLOCK ***
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110421014259.380621789@goodmis.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
kernel/lockdep.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/lockdep.c b/kernel/lockdep.c
index 7b2ffee..73cebd7 100644
--- a/kernel/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/lockdep.c
@@ -1065,6 +1065,56 @@ print_circular_bug_entry(struct lock_list *target, int depth)
return 0;
}
+static void
+print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
+ struct held_lock *tgt,
+ struct lock_list *prt)
+{
+ struct lock_class *source = hlock_class(src);
+ struct lock_class *target = hlock_class(tgt);
+ struct lock_class *parent = prt->class;
+
+ /*
+ * A direct locking problem where unsafe_class lock is taken
+ * directly by safe_class lock, then all we need to show
+ * is the deadlock scenario, as it is obvious that the
+ * unsafe lock is taken under the safe lock.
+ *
+ * But if there is a chain instead, where the safe lock takes
+ * an intermediate lock (middle_class) where this lock is
+ * not the same as the safe lock, then the lock chain is
+ * used to describe the problem. Otherwise we would need
+ * to show a different CPU case for each link in the chain
+ * from the safe_class lock to the unsafe_class lock.
+ */
+ if (parent != source) {
+ printk("Chain exists of:\n ");
+ __print_lock_name(source);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(parent);
+ printk(" --> ");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk("\n\n");
+ }
+
+ printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
+ printk(" CPU0 CPU1\n");
+ printk(" ---- ----\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(parent);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(target);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk(" lock(");
+ __print_lock_name(source);
+ printk(");\n");
+ printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+}
+
/*
* When a circular dependency is detected, print the
* header first:
@@ -1108,6 +1158,7 @@ static noinline int print_circular_bug(struct lock_list *this,
{
struct task_struct *curr = current;
struct lock_list *parent;
+ struct lock_list *first_parent;
int depth;
if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock() || debug_locks_silent)
@@ -1121,6 +1172,7 @@ static noinline int print_circular_bug(struct lock_list *this,
print_circular_bug_header(target, depth, check_src, check_tgt);
parent = get_lock_parent(target);
+ first_parent = parent;
while (parent) {
print_circular_bug_entry(parent, --depth);
@@ -1128,6 +1180,9 @@ static noinline int print_circular_bug(struct lock_list *this,
}
printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
+ print_circular_lock_scenario(check_src, check_tgt,
+ first_parent);
+
lockdep_print_held_locks(curr);
printk("\nstack backtrace:\n");
--
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