linux-kernel - Re: [locking/ww_mutex] 2a0c112828 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 18 at kernel/locking/mutex.c:305 __ww_mutex_wakeup_for

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170301155414.GN6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:54:14 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [locking/ww_mutex] 2a0c112828 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 18 at
 kernel/locking/mutex.c:305 __ww_mutex_wakeup_for_backoff

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> detected" but this warning. Attached is the new dmesg which is a bit
> large due to lots of repeated errors.

So with all the various patches it works for me.

I also have the following on top; which I did when I was looking through
this code trying to figure out wth was happening.

Chris, does this make sense to you?

It makes each loop a fully new 'instance', otherwise we'll never update
the ww_class->stamp and the threads will aways have the same order.

---

diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index da6c9a34f62f..d0fd06429c9d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -398,12 +398,11 @@ static void stress_inorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	if (!order)
 		return;
 
-	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
-
 	do {
 		int contended = -1;
 		int n, err;
 
+		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
 retry:
 		err = 0;
 		for (n = 0; n < nlocks; n++) {
@@ -433,9 +432,9 @@ static void stress_inorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
 				    __func__, err);
 			break;
 		}
-	} while (--stress->nloops);
 
-	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+	} while (--stress->nloops);
 
 	kfree(order);
 	kfree(stress);
@@ -470,9 +469,9 @@ static void stress_reorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
 	kfree(order);
 	order = NULL;
 
-	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
-
 	do {
+		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
+
 		list_for_each_entry(ll, &locks, link) {
 			err = ww_mutex_lock(ll->lock, &ctx);
 			if (!err)
@@ -495,9 +494,9 @@ static void stress_reorder_work(struct work_struct *work)
 		dummy_load(stress);
 		list_for_each_entry(ll, &locks, link)
 			ww_mutex_unlock(ll->lock);
-	} while (--stress->nloops);
 
-	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+	} while (--stress->nloops);
 
 out:
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(ll, ln, &locks, link)