[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705260944160.1902@nanos>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 09:47:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 25/32] kprobes: Cure hotplug lock ordering issues
On Thu, 25 May 2017, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017 10:15:36 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > Converting the cpu hotplug locking to a percpu rwsem unearthed hidden lock
> > ordering problems.
> >
> > There is a wide range of locks involved in this: kprobe_mutex,
> > jump_label_mutex, ftrace_lock, text_mutex, event_mutex,
> > func_hash->regex_lock and a gazillion of lock order permutations with
> > nested get_online_cpus() calls.
>
> And module_mutex too ;-)
Indeed.
> > Some of those permutations are potential deadlocks even with the current
> > nesting hotplug locking scheme, but they can't be discovered by lockdep.
> >
> > The conversion of the hotplug locking to a percpu rwsem requires to prevent
> > nested locking, so it's required to take the hotplug rwsem early in the
> > call chain and establish a proper lock order.
> >
> > After quite some analysis and going down the wrong road severa times the
> > following lock order has been chosen:
> >
> > kprobe_mutex -> cpus_rwsem -> jump_label_mutex -> text_mutex
>
> This seems only change the locking order of module_mutex and
> cpus_rwsem. Previously module_mutex -> cpus_rwsem, now
> cpus_rwsem -> module_mutex. and it seems OK to me.
> (checked in module.c and other use cases of module_mutex)
This also changes the jump label / text mutex interaction with hotplug
locking if you look closely :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists