linux-kernel - Re: lockdep splat in CPU hotplug

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: <20141021160029.GH4977@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:00:29 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep splat in CPU hotplug

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:21:21PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
> 
> >  > I am seeing the lockdep report below when resuming from suspend-to-disk 
> >  > with current Linus' tree (c2661b80609).
> >  > 
> >  > The reason for CCing Ingo and Peter is that I can't make any sense of one 
> >  > of the stacktraces lockdep is providing.
> >  > 
> >  > Please have a look at the very first stacktrace in the dump, where lockdep 
> >  > is trying to explain where cpu_hotplug.lock#2 has been acquired. It seems 
> >  > to imply that cpuidle_pause() is taking cpu_hotplug.lock, but that's not 
> >  > the case at all.
> > 
> > Could inlining be confusing the trace here ?
> > 
> > You can get from cpuidle_pause to cpuidle_uninstall_idle_handler -> synchronize_rcu
> >  -> synchronize_sched -> synchronize_sched_expedited which
> > does a try_get_online_cpus which will take the cpu_hotplug.lock
> 
> Looks like this indeed is something that lockdep *should* report (*), 
> although I would be suprised that stack unwinder would be so confused by 
> this -- there is no way for synchronize_sched_expedited() to be inlined 
> all the way to cpuidle_pause().

I think that if synchronize_sched_expedited() was in fact called, it
had already returned by the time we hit this problem.  But I must confess
that I am not seeing how cpuidle_uninstall_idle_handler() gets to
synchronize_rcu().

> (*) there are multiple places where cpu_hotplug.lock -> cpuidle_lock lock 
>     dependency is assumed. The patch that Dave pointed out adds 
>     cpuidle_lock -> cpu_hotplug.lock dependency.
> 
> Still not clear whether this is what's happening here ... anyway, adding 
> Paul to CC.

Hmmm...

Both cpuidle_pause() and cpuidle_pause_and_lock() acquire cpuidle_lock,
and are at the top of both stacks.  Which was the original confusion.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/