linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

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: <1364551075.5053.82.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:57:55 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr.bueso@...com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	hhuang@...hat.com, jason.low2@...com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
	chegu_vinod@...com, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	benisty.e@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
> 
> 1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
> taking the lock and then releasing it - and yet, lockdep won't catch
> any deadlocks that involve spin_unlock_wait. (Not your fault here,
> this should be fixed as a separate change in lockdep. I manually
> looked at the lock ordering here and found it safe).

Ooh, I never noticed that, but indeed this shouldn't be hard to cure.

> 2- With the current ticket lock implementation, a stream of lockers
> can starve spin_unlock_wait() forever. Once again, not your fault and
> I suspect this could be fixed - I expect spin_unlock_wait() callers
> actually only want to know that the lock has been passed on, not that
> it actually got to an unlocked state.

I suppose the question is do we want to fix it or have both semantics
and use lock+unlock where appropriate.


--
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/