linux-kernel - Re: Q: lockdep_assert_held_read() after downgrade

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:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:32:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@...il.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: Q: lockdep_assert_held_read() after downgrade_write()

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:40:03AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:

> Now allow me going on the second test (based upon Peter's patch)
> 
> - two rwsem, rwA and rwB.
> - the locking order is rwA first, and then rwB.
> - good case
>   down_read(rwA)
>   down_read(rwB)
>   up_read(rwB)
>   up_read(rwA)
> 
>   down_write(rwA)
>   down_write(rwB)
>   up_write(rwB)
>   up_write(rwA)
> 
> - questionable case
>   down_write(rwA)
>   down_write(rwB)
>   downgrade_write(rwA)
>   downgrade_write(rwB)
>   up_read(rwB)
>   up_read(rwA)
> 
> These two downgrade_write() have their strict order? If so, what is
> that?
> Do the added two lines
> +	rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +	rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> produce a traditional AB-BA deadlock warning, don't they?

Blergh, yes, because we do a full release.

Does something like the below work better? The annotation in
downgrade_write() would look something like:

+	lock_downgrade(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);

Not even compile tested and lacks the !LOCKDEP build bits.

---
diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index 1e327bb..76cf149 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -361,6 +361,8 @@ static inline void lock_set_subclass(struct lockdep_map *lock,
 	lock_set_class(lock, lock->name, lock->key, subclass, ip);
 }
 
+extern void lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, int read, unsigned long ip);
+
 extern void lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state(gfp_t gfp_mask);
 extern void lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state(void);
 extern void lockdep_trace_alloc(gfp_t mask);
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 7c38f8f..88517b6 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3488,6 +3488,63 @@ __lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
 	return 1;
 }
 
+static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, int read, unsigned long ip)
+{
+	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	struct held_lock *hlock, *prev_hlock;
+	struct lock_class *class;
+	unsigned int depth;
+	int i;
+
+	depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
+	/*
+	 * This function is about (re)setting the class of a held lock,
+	 * yet we're not actually holding any locks. Naughty user!
+	 */
+	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!depth))
+		return 0;
+
+	prev_hlock = NULL;
+	for (i = depth-1; i >= 0; i--) {
+		hlock = curr->held_locks + i;
+		/*
+		 * We must not cross into another context:
+		 */
+		if (prev_hlock && prev_hlock->irq_context != hlock->irq_context)
+			break;
+		if (match_held_lock(hlock, lock))
+			goto found_it;
+		prev_hlock = hlock;
+	}
+	return print_unlock_imbalance_bug(curr, lock, ip);
+
+found_it:
+	curr->lockdep_depth = i;
+	curr->curr_chain_key = hlock->prev_chain_key;
+
+	WARN(hlock->read, "downgrading a read lock");
+	hlock->read = read;
+	hlock->acquire_ip = ip;
+
+	for (; i < depth; i++) {
+		hlock = curr->held_locks + i;
+		if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
+			hlock_class(hlock)->subclass, hlock->trylock,
+				hlock->read, hlock->check, hlock->hardirqs_off,
+				hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip,
+				hlock->references, hlock->pin_count))
+			return 0;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * I took it apart and put it back together again, except now I have
+	 * these 'spare' parts.. where shall I put them.
+	 */
+	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth))
+		return 0;
+	return 1;
+}
+
 /*
  * Remove the lock to the list of currently held locks - this gets
  * called on mutex_unlock()/spin_unlock*() (or on a failed
@@ -3732,6 +3789,23 @@ void lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_set_class);
 
+void lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, int read, unsigned long ip)
+{
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion))
+		return;
+
+	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
+	current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
+	check_flags(flags);
+	if (__lock_downgrade(lock, read, ip))
+		check_chain_key(current);
+	current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
+	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lock_downgrade);
+
 /*
  * We are not always called with irqs disabled - do that here,
  * and also avoid lockdep recursion: