linux-kernel - [GIT pull] locking updates for 4.5

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1602141027310.19512@nanos>
Date:	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:29:52 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [GIT pull] locking updates for 4.5

Linus,

please pull the latest locking-urgent-for-linus git tree from:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-urgent-for-linus

A single fix for the stack trace caching logic in lockdep, where the duplicate
avoidance managed to store no back trace at all.

Thanks,

	tglx

------------------>
Dmitry Vyukov (1):
      locking/lockdep: Fix stack trace caching logic


 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 16 ++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 60ace56618f6..c7710e4092ef 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next,
  */
 static int
 check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
-	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, int trylock_loop)
+	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, int *stack_saved)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
 	int ret;
@@ -1883,8 +1883,11 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (!trylock_loop && !save_trace(&trace))
-		return 0;
+	if (!*stack_saved) {
+		if (!save_trace(&trace))
+			return 0;
+		*stack_saved = 1;
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * Ok, all validations passed, add the new lock
@@ -1907,6 +1910,8 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 * Debugging printouts:
 	 */
 	if (verbose(hlock_class(prev)) || verbose(hlock_class(next))) {
+		/* We drop graph lock, so another thread can overwrite trace. */
+		*stack_saved = 0;
 		graph_unlock();
 		printk("\n new dependency: ");
 		print_lock_name(hlock_class(prev));
@@ -1929,7 +1934,7 @@ static int
 check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 {
 	int depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
-	int trylock_loop = 0;
+	int stack_saved = 0;
 	struct held_lock *hlock;
 
 	/*
@@ -1956,7 +1961,7 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		 */
 		if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
 			if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
-						distance, trylock_loop))
+						distance, &stack_saved))
 				return 0;
 			/*
 			 * Stop after the first non-trylock entry,
@@ -1979,7 +1984,6 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		if (curr->held_locks[depth].irq_context !=
 				curr->held_locks[depth-1].irq_context)
 			break;
-		trylock_loop = 1;
 	}
 	return 1;
 out_bug: