| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:52:34 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
bhelgaas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected
On 07/19/2013 04:57 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 07:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 04:23 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> kernel/workqueue.c | 6 ++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>> index f02c4a4..07d9a67 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>>> {
>>> struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>>> + static struct lock_class_key __key;
>>
>> Sorry, this "static" should be removed.
>>
>
> That didn't help either :-( Because it makes lockdep unhappy,
> since the key isn't persistent.
>
> This is the patch I used:
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index f02c4a4..7967e3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
> {
> struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> + struct lock_class_key __key;
> + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
> + lockdep_init_map(&wfc.work.lockdep_map, "&wfc.work", &__key, 0);
> +#else
> INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
> +#endif
> schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
> flush_work(&wfc.work);
> return wfc.ret;
>
>
> And here are the new warnings:
>
>
> Block layer SCSI generic (bsg) driver version 0.4 loaded (major 252)
> io scheduler noop registered
> io scheduler deadline registered
> io scheduler cfq registered (default)
> BUG: key ffff881039557b98 not in .data!
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1 at kernel/lockdep.c:2987 lockdep_init_map+0x168/0x170()
Sorry again.
>From 0096b9dac2282ec03d59a3f665b92977381a18ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:08:51 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] workqueue: allow the function of work_on_cpu() can
call work_on_cpu()
If the @fn call work_on_cpu() again, the lockdep will complain:
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 3.11.0-rc1-lockdep-fix-a #6 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------------------
> kworker/0:1/142 is trying to acquire lock:
> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81077100>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dd9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock((&wfc.work));
> lock((&wfc.work));
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
It is false-positive lockdep report. In this sutiation,
the two "wfc"s of the two work_on_cpu() are different,
they are both on stack. flush_work() can't be deadlock.
To fix this, we need to avoid the lockdep checking in this case,
But we don't want to change the flush_work(), so we use
completion instead of flush_work() in the work_on_cpu().
Reported-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index f02c4a4..b021a45 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -4731,6 +4731,7 @@ struct work_for_cpu {
long (*fn)(void *);
void *arg;
long ret;
+ struct completion done;
};
static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -4738,6 +4739,7 @@ static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(work, struct work_for_cpu, work);
wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
+ complete(&wfc->done);
}
/**
@@ -4755,8 +4757,9 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
+ init_completion(&wfc.done);
schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
- flush_work(&wfc.work);
+ wait_for_completion(&wfc.done);
return wfc.ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
--
1.7.4.4
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists