linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/13] lockdep: Use "WARNING" tag on lockdep splats

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: <20170413160135.GY3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:01:35 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/13] lockdep: Use "WARNING" tag on lockdep
 splats

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:55:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This commit changes lockdep splats to begin lines with "WARNING" and
> > to use pr_warn() instead of printk().  This change eases scripted
> > analysis of kernel console output.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/locking/lockdep.c       | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  kernel/locking/rtmutex-debug.c |  9 +++--
> >  2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index a95e5d1f4a9c..e9d4f85b290c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -1144,10 +1144,10 @@ print_circular_bug_header(struct lock_list *entry, unsigned int depth,
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	printk("\n");
> > -	printk("======================================================\n");
> > -	printk("[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]\n");
> > +	pr_warn("======================================================\n");
> > +	pr_warn("WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected\n");
> >  	print_kernel_ident();
> > -	printk("-------------------------------------------------------\n");
> > +	pr_warn("------------------------------------------------------\n");
> >  	printk("%s/%d is trying to acquire lock:\n",
> >  		curr->comm, task_pid_nr(curr));
> >  	print_lock(check_src);
> 
> Blergh, not a fan of this patch. Now we have an odd mix of pr_crap() and
> printk().

Would you be OK with all of the lockdep messages being updated to
WARNING rather than just the RCU-related ones?

							Thanx, Paul