linux-kernel - Re: tty^Wrcu/perf lockdep trace.

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: <20131004065835.GP28601@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:58:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, peter@...leysoftware.com
Subject: Re: tty^Wrcu/perf lockdep trace.

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:58:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:42:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > That's not tty; that's RCU..
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >  ======================================================
> > >  [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > >  3.12.0-rc3+ #92 Not tainted
> > >  -------------------------------------------------------
> > >  trinity-child2/15191 is trying to acquire lock:
> > >   (&rdp->nocb_wq){......}, at: [<ffffffff8108ff43>] __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> > >  
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > >   (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81154c19>] perf_event_exit_task+0x109/0x230
> > > 
> > > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > > 
> > > -> #3 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
> > >  
> > > -> #2 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
> > >  
> > > -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
> > >  
> > > -> #0 (&rdp->nocb_wq){......}:
> 
> I suppose I could defer the ->nocb_wq wakeup until the next context switch
> or transition to idle/userspace, but it might be simpler for put_ctx()
> to maintain a per-CPU chain of callbacks which are kfree_rcu()ed when
> ctx->lock is dropped.  Also easier on the kernel/user and kernel/idle
> transition overhead/latency...
> 
> Other thoughts?

What's caused this? We've had that kfree_rcu() in there for ages. I need
to audit all the get/put_ctx calls anyway for an unrelated issue but I
fear its going to be messy to defer that kfree_rcu() call, but I can
try.


--
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/