linux-kernel - Re: lockdep false positive in double_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: <CAG4TOxM9-hHxSyu3XHFgACRYP8Rr3ogAgk=StGxbr2KCkrR81Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 09:42:58 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep false positive in double_lock_balance()?

> *phew* you actually made me think there ;-)

Sorry for that.

> The race you describe exists, except that's not how lockdep works. Both
> cpu's would have a different task (one would hope to presume) and the
> held lock stack is per task. So even if busiest_rq on cpu1 (lock case)
> is the same lock as this_rq on cpu0 (unlock case), they're in different
> stacks with different states.

Got it.  I confused myself between user processes (which might have
multiple threads on multiple CPUs) and kernel tasks.

> Something like this should fix it I think..

Thanks, I'll throw this in and let you know if we see this again.
But it's very rare so hard to know one way or another for quite
a while.

 - R.
--
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/