linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.16-rc6

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:38:28 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6

On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra<peterz@...radead.org>  wrote:
>>> So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
>>>
>>> [   61.454336]        CPU0                    CPU1
>>> [   61.454336]        ----                    ----
>>> [   61.454336]   lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
>>> [   61.454336]                                local_irq_disable();
>>> [   61.454336]                                lock(tasklist_lock);
>>> [   61.454336]                                lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
>>> [   61.454336]<Interrupt>
>>> [   61.454336]     lock(tasklist_lock);
>> So this *should* be fine. It always has been in the past, and it was
>> certainly the *intention* that it should continue to work with
>> qrwlock, even in the presense of pending writers on other cpu's.
>>
>> The qrwlock rules are that a read-lock in an interrupt is still going
>> to be unfair and succeed if there are other readers.
> Ah, indeed. Should have checked :/
>
>> So it sounds to me like the new lockdep rules in tip/master are too
>> strict and are throwing a false positive.
> Right. Waiman can you have a look?

Yes, I think I may have a solution for that.

Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch 
to see if it can fix the problem?

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index d24e433..507a8ce 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3595,6 +3595,12 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, 
unsigned int
         raw_local_irq_save(flags);
         check_flags(flags);

+       /*
+        * An interrupt recursive read in interrupt context can be 
considered
+        * to be the same as a recursive read from checking perspective.
+        */
+       if ((read == 3) && in_interrupt())
+               read = 2;
         current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
         trace_lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check, 
nest_lock, ip);
         __lock_acquire(lock, subclass, trylock, read, check,

--
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/