linux-kernel - Re: lockdep recursive locking detected (rcu_kthread / __cache

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: <1317739225.32543.9.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:40:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	penberg@...nel.org, mpm@...enic.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep recursive locking detected (rcu_kthread / __cache_free)

On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 09:28 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:46:11PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > The first lock was acquired here in an RCU callback.  The later lock that
> > > > lockdep complained about appears to have been acquired from a recursive
> > > > call to __cache_free(), with no help from RCU.  This looks to me like
> > > > one of the issues that arise from the slab allocator using itself to
> > > > allocate slab metadata.
> > >
> > > Right. However, this is a false positive since the slab cache with
> > > the metadata is different from the slab caches with the slab data. The slab
> > > cache with the metadata does not use itself any metadata slab caches.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be possible to pass a new flag to the metadata slab caches
> > upon creation so that their locks could be placed in a separate lock
> > class?  Just allocate a separate lock_class_key structure for each such
> > lock in that case, and then use lockdep_set_class_and_name to associate
> > that structure with the corresponding lock.  I do this in kernel/rcutree.c
> > in order to allow the rcu_node tree's locks to nest properly.
> 
> We could give the kmalloc array a different class from created slab
> caches. That should have the desired effect.
> 
> But that seems to be already the case (looking at init_node_lock_keys).
> Non OFF_SLAB caches seem to be getting a different lock class? Why is this
> not working?
> 
> static void init_node_lock_keys(int q)
> {
>         struct cache_sizes *s = malloc_sizes;
> 
>         if (g_cpucache_up != FULL)
>                 return;
> 
>         for (s = malloc_sizes; s->cs_size != ULONG_MAX; s++) {
>                 struct kmem_list3 *l3;
> 
>                 l3 = s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q];
>                 if (!l3 || OFF_SLAB(s->cs_cachep))
>                         continue;
> 
>                 slab_set_lock_classes(s->cs_cachep, &on_slab_l3_key,
>                                 &on_slab_alc_key, q);
>         }
> }

Right, so we recently poked at this to fix some other splats, see:

30765b92ada267c5395fc788623cb15233276f5c
83835b3d9aec8e9f666d8223d8a386814f756266

It could of course be I got confused and broke stuff instead, could
someone who knows slab (I guess that's either Pekka, Christoph or David)
stare at those patches?
--
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/