linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack

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]

Date:   Fri,  9 Dec 2016 14:12:01 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
        kirill@...temov.name, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH v4 05/15] lockdep: Make check_prev_add can use a separate stack_trace

check_prev_add() saves a stack trace of the current. But crossrelease
feature needs to use a separate stack trace of another context in
check_prev_add(). So make it use a separate stack trace instead of one
of the current.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 111839f..3eaa11c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1793,7 +1793,8 @@ 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 *stack_saved)
+	       struct held_lock *next, int distance, int *stack_saved,
+	       struct stack_trace *own_trace)
 {
 	struct lock_list *entry;
 	int ret;
@@ -1854,7 +1855,7 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (!*stack_saved) {
+	if (!own_trace && stack_saved && !*stack_saved) {
 		if (!save_trace(&trace))
 			return 0;
 		*stack_saved = 1;
@@ -1866,14 +1867,14 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 */
 	ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(prev), hlock_class(next),
 			       &hlock_class(prev)->locks_after,
-			       next->acquire_ip, distance, &trace);
+			       next->acquire_ip, distance, own_trace ?: &trace);
 
 	if (!ret)
 		return 0;
 
 	ret = add_lock_to_list(hlock_class(next), hlock_class(prev),
 			       &hlock_class(next)->locks_before,
-			       next->acquire_ip, distance, &trace);
+			       next->acquire_ip, distance, own_trace ?: &trace);
 	if (!ret)
 		return 0;
 
@@ -1882,7 +1883,8 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 */
 	if (verbose(hlock_class(prev)) || verbose(hlock_class(next))) {
 		/* We drop graph lock, so another thread can overwrite trace. */
-		*stack_saved = 0;
+		if (stack_saved)
+			*stack_saved = 0;
 		graph_unlock();
 		printk("\n new dependency: ");
 		print_lock_name(hlock_class(prev));
@@ -1931,8 +1933,8 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		 * added:
 		 */
 		if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
-			if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
-						distance, &stack_saved))
+			if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next, distance,
+						&stack_saved, NULL))
 				return 0;
 			/*
 			 * Stop after the first non-trylock entry,
-- 
1.9.1