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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:33:45 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep splat in CPU hotplug

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:53:49AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > What am I missing?

> Still, the lockdep stacktrace is bogus and didn't really help 
> understanding this. Any idea why it's wrong?

> > -> #1 (cpu_hotplug.lock#2){+.+.+.}:
> >         [<ffffffff81099fac>] lock_acquire+0xac/0x130
> >         [<ffffffff815b9f2c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5c/0x3b0
> >         [<ffffffff81491892>] cpuidle_pause+0x12/0x30
> >         [<ffffffff81402314>] dpm_suspend_noirq+0x44/0x340
> >         [<ffffffff81402958>] dpm_suspend_end+0x38/0x80
> >         [<ffffffff810a07bd>] hibernation_snapshot+0xcd/0x370
> >         [<ffffffff810a1248>] hibernate+0x168/0x210
> >         [<ffffffff8109e9b4>] state_store+0xe4/0xf0
> >         [<ffffffff813003ef>] kobj_attr_store+0xf/0x20
> >         [<ffffffff8121e9a3>] sysfs_kf_write+0x43/0x60
> >         [<ffffffff8121e287>] kernfs_fop_write+0xe7/0x170
> >         [<ffffffff811a7342>] vfs_write+0xb2/0x1f0
> >         [<ffffffff811a7da4>] SyS_write+0x44/0xb0
> >         [<ffffffff815be856>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Right, so I've seen it more often, and I'm not sure I can explain
either.

Lockdep uses save_stack_trace() with trace->skip=3, typically if you
get ->skip wrong you'd not even see the lock_acquire, so that can't be
it.

The only thing I can come up with is that for some reason the
intermediate entries are !reliable, save_stack_trace() skips those for
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y, see
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:__save_stack_address().
--
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/