linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: tty_mutex: fix lockdep warning in tty_lock

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: <20120517182830.GA5254@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 11:28:30 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: tty_mutex: fix lockdep warning in tty_lock_pair

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Commit d29f3ef39be4eec0362b985305fc526d9be318cf(tty_lock:
> Localise the lock) introduces tty_lock_pair, in which
> may cause lockdep warning because two locks with same lock
> class are to be acquired one after another.
> 
> This patch uses mutex_lock_nest_lock annotation to avoid
> the warning.
> 
> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c |   21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c b/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
> index 69adc80..079f9d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_mutex.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,18 @@
>   * Getting the big tty mutex.
>   */
>  
> +static void __lockfunc tty_lock_nest_lock(struct tty_struct *tty,
> +		struct tty_struct *tty2)

Duplicating tty_lock() just for this one issue seems wrong and prone to
error, don't you think?

> +{
> +	if (tty->magic != TTY_MAGIC) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "L Bad %p\n", tty);
> +		WARN_ON(1);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	tty_kref_get(tty);
> +	mutex_lock_nest_lock(&tty->legacy_mutex, &tty2->legacy_mutex);
> +}
> +
>  void __lockfunc tty_lock(struct tty_struct *tty)
>  {
>  	if (tty->magic != TTY_MAGIC) {
> @@ -43,11 +55,14 @@ void __lockfunc tty_lock_pair(struct tty_struct *tty,
>  {
>  	if (tty < tty2) {
>  		tty_lock(tty);
> -		tty_lock(tty2);
> +		tty_lock_nest_lock(tty2, tty);
>  	} else {
> -		if (tty2 && tty2 != tty)
> +		if (tty2 && tty2 != tty) {
>  			tty_lock(tty2);
> -		tty_lock(tty);
> +			tty_lock_nest_lock(tty, tty2);

This is wonky, and confusing, don't you think?

I don't like it, surely there's a better way to solve this?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/