linux-kernel - Re: [Linux-v4.6-rc1] ext4: WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2692 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2017 __lock

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: <CA+icZUXAUV215UZ9MpirpyQFHM4W7W73Fz4SyoodLXsPzzp32g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:07:37 +0200
From:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-v4.6-rc1] ext4: WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2692 at
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2017 __lock_acquire+0x180e/0x2260

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 05:59:54PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> > @@ -3164,6 +3181,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
>> >     hlock->acquire_ip = ip;
>> >     hlock->instance = lock;
>> >     hlock->nest_lock = nest_lock;
>> > +   hlock->irq_context = 2*(!!curr->hardirq_context) + !!curr->softirq_context;
>> >     hlock->trylock = trylock;
>> >     hlock->read = read;
>> >     hlock->check = check;
>>
>> This is just for cleaning up, right? However ->hardirq_context and
>> ->softirq_context only defined when CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS=y.
>
> Ah, that is the reason it was in a 'funny' place.
>
> The other reason is that we're careful to reduce hardirq_context to 0,1
> but don't do so for softirq_context.
>
>> So we should use macro like current_hardirq_context() here? Or
>> considering the two helpers introduced in my RFC:
>>
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1455602265-16490-2-git-send-email-boqun.feng@gmail.com
>>
>> if you don't think that overkills ;-)
>
> Yeah, that might work, although I would like to keep the !! on both,
> makes me worry less.

Can you CC me on any new patches in this area?

Thanks.

- Sedat -