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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:37:14 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	USB list <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6

On 07/25/2014 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> 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,
> Just had another look at the initial patch and it cannot be right, even
> with the above.
> The problem is you cannot use in_interrupt() in check_deadlock().
> Check_deadlock() must be context invariant, it should only test the
> chain state and not rely on where or when its called.

I am planning to take out the check in check_deadlock and only have the 
test in lock_acquire which change a 3 to 2 when in interrupt context. 
Now my question is whether to do it as a new patch on top of the 
existing one in tip or a total replacement. I also intend to use 
symbolic names for the read states for better readability as suggested 
by John.

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