linux-kernel - [PATCH v4 04/15] lockdep: Add a function building a chain between two classes

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: <1481260331-360-5-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date:   Fri,  9 Dec 2016 14:12:00 +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 04/15] lockdep: Add a function building a chain between two classes

add_chain_cache() should be used in the context where the hlock is
owned since it might be racy in another context. However crossrelease
feature needs to build a chain between two locks regardless of context.
So introduce a new function making it possible.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 5df56aa..111839f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2105,6 +2105,62 @@ static int check_no_collision(struct task_struct *curr,
 	return 1;
 }
 
+/*
+ * This is for building a chain between just two different classes,
+ * instead of adding a new hlock upon current, which is done by
+ * add_chain_cache().
+ *
+ * This can be called in any context with two classes, while
+ * add_chain_cache() must be done within the lock owener's context
+ * since it uses hlock which might be racy in another context.
+ */
+static inline int add_chain_cache_classes(unsigned int prev,
+					  unsigned int next,
+					  unsigned int irq_context,
+					  u64 chain_key)
+{
+	struct hlist_head *hash_head = chainhashentry(chain_key);
+	struct lock_chain *chain;
+
+	/*
+	 * Allocate a new chain entry from the static array, and add
+	 * it to the hash:
+	 */
+
+	/*
+	 * We might need to take the graph lock, ensure we've got IRQs
+	 * disabled to make this an IRQ-safe lock.. for recursion reasons
+	 * lockdep won't complain about its own locking errors.
+	 */
+	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()))
+		return 0;
+
+	if (unlikely(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
+		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
+			return 0;
+
+		print_lockdep_off("BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!");
+		dump_stack();
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	chain = lock_chains + nr_lock_chains++;
+	chain->chain_key = chain_key;
+	chain->irq_context = irq_context;
+	chain->depth = 2;
+	if (likely(nr_chain_hlocks + chain->depth <= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS)) {
+		chain->base = nr_chain_hlocks;
+		nr_chain_hlocks += chain->depth;
+		chain_hlocks[chain->base] = prev - 1;
+		chain_hlocks[chain->base + 1] = next -1;
+	}
+	hlist_add_head_rcu(&chain->entry, hash_head);
+	debug_atomic_inc(chain_lookup_misses);
+	inc_chains();
+
+	return 1;
+}
+
 static inline int add_chain_cache(struct task_struct *curr,
 				  struct held_lock *hlock,
 				  u64 chain_key)
-- 
1.9.1