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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:36:37 +0400
From:	Vladimir Davydov <>
To:	<>
CC:	<>, <>, <>,
Subject: [PATCH] slub: fix false-positive lockdep warning in free_partial()

Commit c65c1877bd68 ("slub: use lockdep_assert_held") requires
remove_partial() to be called with n->list_lock held, but free_partial()
called from kmem_cache_close() on cache destruction does not follow this
rule, leading to a warning:

  WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2787 at mm/slub.c:1536 __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0()
  Modules linked in:
  CPU: 0 PID: 2787 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G        W    3.14.0-rc1-mm1+ #1
  Hardware name:
   0000000000000600 ffff88003ae1dde8 ffffffff816d9583 0000000000000600
   0000000000000000 ffff88003ae1de28 ffffffff8107c107 0000000000000000
   ffff880037ab2b00 ffff88007c240d30 ffffea0001ee5280 ffffea0001ee52a0
  Call Trace:
   [<ffffffff816d9583>] dump_stack+0x51/0x6e
   [<ffffffff8107c107>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xb0
   [<ffffffff8107c145>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
   [<ffffffff811c7fe2>] __kmem_cache_shutdown+0x1b2/0x1f0
   [<ffffffff811908d3>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x43/0xf0
   [<ffffffffa013a123>] xfs_destroy_zones+0x103/0x110 [xfs]
   [<ffffffffa0192b54>] exit_xfs_fs+0x38/0x4e4 [xfs]
   [<ffffffff811036fa>] SyS_delete_module+0x19a/0x1f0
   [<ffffffff816dfcd8>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
   [<ffffffff810d2125>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0
   [<ffffffff81359efe>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
   [<ffffffff816e8539>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Although this cannot actually result in a race, because on cache
destruction there should not be any concurrent frees or allocations from
the cache, let's add spin_lock/unlock to free_partial() just to keep
lockdep happy.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <>
 mm/slub.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 0eeea85034c8..b1054568a76e 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -3191,6 +3191,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
 	struct page *page, *h;
+	spin_lock_irq(&n->list_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(page, h, &n->partial, lru) {
 		if (!page->inuse) {
 			remove_partial(n, page);
@@ -3200,6 +3201,7 @@ static void free_partial(struct kmem_cache *s, struct kmem_cache_node *n)
 			"Objects remaining in %s on kmem_cache_close()");
+	spin_unlock_irq(&n->list_lock);

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists