linux-kernel - Re: slab vs lockdep vs debugobjects

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: <201106262204.25710.maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 26 Jun 2011 22:04:25 +0200
From:	Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: slab vs lockdep vs debugobjects

I created a Bugzilla entry at 
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36912
for your bug report, please add your address to the CC list in there, thanks!

On poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2011 o 19:48:00 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Pekka,
> 
> Thomas found a fun lockdep splat, see below. Basically call_rcu() can
> end up in kmem_cache_alloc(), and call_rcu() is used under
> l3->list_lock, causing the splat. Since the debug kmem_cache isn't
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU this shouldn't ever actually recurse.
> 
> Now, since this particular kmem_cache is created with
> SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS, we thought it might be easy enough to set a separate
> lockdep class for its l3->list_lock's.
> 
> However I found that the existing lockdep annotation is for kmalloc only
> -- don't custom kmem_caches use OFF_SLAB?
> 
> Anyway, I got lost in slab (again), but would it make sense to move all
> lockdep fixups into kmem_list3_init() or thereabouts?
> 
> 
> ---
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 3.0.0-rc3+ #37
> ---------------------------------------------
> udevd/124 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffff81119619>]
> ____cache_alloc+0xc9/0x323
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffff8111844e>]
> __cache_free+0x325/0x3ea
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock);
>   lock(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
>  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> 
> 2 locks held by udevd/124:
>  #0:  (&(&(*({ do { const void *__vpp_verify =
> (typeof((&(slab_lock))))((void *)0); (void)__vpp_verify; } while (0); ({
> unsigned long __ptr; __asm__ ("" : "=r"(__ptr) :
> "0"((typeof(*(&(slab_lock))) *)(&(slab_lock))));
> (typeof((typeof(*(&(slab_lock))) *)(&(slab_lock)))) (__ptr +
> (((__per_cpu_offset[__cpu])))); }); })).lock)->rlock){..-...}, at:
> [<ffffffff811164cc>] __local_lock_irq+0x16/0x61 #1: 
> (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffff8111844e>]
> __cache_free+0x325/0x3ea
> 
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 124, comm: udevd Not tainted 3.0.0-rc3+ #37
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff81081e3d>] __lock_acquire+0x9ae/0xdc8
>  [<ffffffff8107f289>] ? look_up_lock_class+0x5f/0xbe
>  [<ffffffff810812e4>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x1d8
>  [<ffffffff81119619>] ? ____cache_alloc+0xc9/0x323
>  [<ffffffff81082774>] lock_acquire+0x103/0x12e
>  [<ffffffff81119619>] ? ____cache_alloc+0xc9/0x323
>  [<ffffffff8107f6b9>] ? register_lock_class+0x1e/0x2ca
>  [<ffffffff81247054>] ? __debug_object_init+0x43/0x2e7
>  [<ffffffff814a7730>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x4a
>  [<ffffffff81119619>] ? ____cache_alloc+0xc9/0x323
>  [<ffffffff81119619>] ____cache_alloc+0xc9/0x323
>  [<ffffffff8107f6b9>] ? register_lock_class+0x1e/0x2ca
>  [<ffffffff81247054>] ? __debug_object_init+0x43/0x2e7
>  [<ffffffff8111b0d5>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xc5/0x1fb
>  [<ffffffff81247054>] __debug_object_init+0x43/0x2e7
>  [<ffffffff8124735f>] ? debug_object_activate+0x38/0xdc
>  [<ffffffff810812e4>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x1d8
>  [<ffffffff8124730c>] debug_object_init+0x14/0x16
>  [<ffffffff8106bd26>] rcuhead_fixup_activate+0x2b/0xbc
>  [<ffffffff81246d6f>] debug_object_fixup+0x1e/0x2b
>  [<ffffffff812473f6>] debug_object_activate+0xcf/0xdc
>  [<ffffffff81118b93>] ? kmem_cache_shrink+0x68/0x68
>  [<ffffffff810b1fc0>] __call_rcu+0x4f/0x19e
>  [<ffffffff810b2124>] call_rcu+0x15/0x17
>  [<ffffffff81117c4a>] slab_destroy+0x11f/0x157
>  [<ffffffff81117dd4>] free_block+0x152/0x18d
>  [<ffffffff81118497>] __cache_free+0x36e/0x3ea
>  [<ffffffff81103b3b>] ? anon_vma_free+0x3d/0x41
>  [<ffffffff811164cc>] ? __local_lock_irq+0x16/0x61
>  [<ffffffff81117aad>] kmem_cache_free+0xa1/0x11f
>  [<ffffffff81103b3b>] anon_vma_free+0x3d/0x41
>  [<ffffffff81104a77>] __put_anon_vma+0x38/0x3d
>  [<ffffffff81104aa5>] put_anon_vma+0x29/0x2d
>  [<ffffffff81104b7e>] unlink_anon_vmas+0x72/0xa5
>  [<ffffffff810faa5b>] free_pgtables+0x6c/0xcb
>  [<ffffffff81100c96>] exit_mmap+0xc0/0xf7
>  [<ffffffff8104de1d>] mmput+0x60/0xd3
>  [<ffffffff81054112>] exit_mm+0x141/0x14e
>  [<ffffffff814a7d75>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x54/0x61
>  [<ffffffff8105436a>] do_exit+0x24b/0x74f
>  [<ffffffff811289ae>] ? fput+0x1d4/0x1e3
>  [<ffffffff8107f539>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x33/0x90
>  [<ffffffff814a847d>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
>  [<ffffffff81054ae2>] do_group_exit+0x82/0xad
>  [<ffffffff81054b24>] sys_exit_group+0x17/0x1b
>  [<ffffffff814ae182>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> --
> 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/

-- 
Maciej Rutecki
http://www.maciek.unixy.pl
--
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/