linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170823024323.GD3108@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:43:23 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@....com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all
 part of PROVE_LOCKING

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:49:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:08:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > > > I meant:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > >  				<work>
> > > > >  				lockdep_map_acquire_read(&work)
> > > > >  				mutex_lock(&A)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	lockdep_map_acquire(&work)
> > > > >  	flush_work(&work)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I mean it can still be detected with a read acquisition in work.
> > > > > Am I wrong?
> > > > 
> > > > Think so, although there's something weird with read locks that I keep
> > > > forgetting. But I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. But I can
> > > 
> > > I mean, read acquisitions are nothing but ones allowing read ones to be
> > > re-acquired legally, IOW, we want to check entrance of flush_work() and
> > > works, not between works. That's why I suggested to use read ones in work
> > > in that case.
> > 
> > Does seem to work.
> 
> So I think we'll end up hitting a lockdep deficiency and not trigger the
> splat on flush_work(), see also:
> 
>   https://lwn.net/Articles/332801/
> 
> lock_map_acquire_read() is a read-recursive and will not in fact create
> any dependencies because of this issue.
> 
> In specific, check_prev_add() has:
> 
> 	if (next->read == 2 || prev->read == 2)
> 		return 1;
> 
> This means that for:
> 
> 	lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> 	down_write(A)		(0)
> 
> 			down_write(A)		(0)
> 			wait_for_completion(C)	(0)
> 
> 					lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> 					complete(C)		(0)
> 
> All the (2) effectively go away and 'solve' our current issue, but:
> 
> 	lock_map_acquire_read(W)(2)
> 	mutex_lock(A)		(0)
> 
> 			mutex_lock(A)		(0)
> 			lock_map_acquire(W)	(0)
> 
> as per flush_work() will not in fact trigger anymore either.

It should be triggered. Lockdep code should be fixed so that it does.

> See also the below locking-selftest changes.
> 
> 
> Now, this means I also have to consider the existing
> lock_map_acquire_read() users and if they really wanted to be recursive
> or not. When I change lock_map_acquire_read() to use
> lock_acquire_shared() this annotation no longer suffices and the splat
> comes back.
> 
> 
> Also, the acquire_read() annotation will (obviously) no longer work to
> cure this problem when we switch to normal read (1), because then the
> generated chain:
> 
> 	W(1) -> A(0) -> C(0) -> W(1)

Please explain what W/A/C stand for.

> 
> spells deadlock, since W isn't allowed to recurse.
> 
> 
> /me goes dig through commit:
> 
>   e159489baa71 ("workqueue: relax lockdep annotation on flush_work()")
> 
> to figure out wth the existing users really want.
> 
> 
> [    0.000000] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [    0.000000]                                  | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
> [    0.000000]   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [    0.000000]   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [    0.000000]               recursive read-lock:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]            recursive read-lock #2:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]             mixed read-write-lock:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]             mixed write-read-lock:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]   mixed read-lock/lock-write ABBA:             |FAILED|             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]    mixed read-lock/lock-read ABBA:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]  mixed write-lock/lock-write ABBA:             |  ok  |             |  ok  |
> [    0.000000]   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ---
>  lib/locking-selftest.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 116 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> index 6f2b135dc5e8..b99d365cf399 100644
> --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> @@ -363,6 +363,103 @@ static void rsem_AA3(void)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * read_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + *		spin_lock(B)
> + *		write_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA1(void)
> +{
> +	RL(X1);
> +	L(Y1);
> +	U(Y1);
> +	RU(X1);
> +
> +	L(Y1);
> +	WL(X1);
> +	WU(X1);
> +	U(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA1(void)
> +{
> +	RSL(X1);
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	MU(Y1);
> +	RSU(X1);
> +
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	WSL(X1);
> +	WSU(X1);
> +	MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * read_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + *		spin_lock(B)
> + *		read_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA2(void)
> +{
> +	RL(X1);
> +	L(Y1);
> +	U(Y1);
> +	RU(X1);
> +
> +	L(Y1);
> +	RL(X1);
> +	RU(X1);
> +	U(Y1); // should NOT fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA2(void)
> +{
> +	RSL(X1);
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	MU(Y1);
> +	RSU(X1);
> +
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	RSL(X1);
> +	RSU(X1);
> +	MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +
> +/*
> + * write_lock(A)
> + * spin_lock(B)
> + *		spin_lock(B)
> + *		write_lock(A)
> + */
> +static void rlock_ABBA3(void)
> +{
> +	WL(X1);
> +	L(Y1);
> +	U(Y1);
> +	WU(X1);
> +
> +	L(Y1);
> +	WL(X1);
> +	WU(X1);
> +	U(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +static void rwsem_ABBA3(void)
> +{
> +	WSL(X1);
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	MU(Y1);
> +	WSU(X1);
> +
> +	ML(Y1);
> +	WSL(X1);
> +	WSU(X1);
> +	MU(Y1); // should fail
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * ABBA deadlock:
>   */
>  
> @@ -1057,7 +1154,7 @@ static void dotest(void (*testcase_fn)(void), int expected, int lockclass_mask)
>  		unexpected_testcase_failures++;
>  		pr_cont("FAILED|");
>  
> -		dump_stack();
> +//		dump_stack();
>  	} else {
>  		testcase_successes++;
>  		pr_cont("  ok  |");
> @@ -1933,6 +2030,24 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
>  	dotest(rsem_AA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
>  	pr_cont("\n");
>  
> +	print_testname("mixed read-lock/lock-write ABBA");
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rlock_ABBA1, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rwsem_ABBA1, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
> +	print_testname("mixed read-lock/lock-read ABBA");
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rlock_ABBA2, SUCCESS, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rwsem_ABBA2, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
> +	print_testname("mixed write-lock/lock-write ABBA");
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rlock_ABBA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK);
> +	pr_cont("             |");
> +	dotest(rwsem_ABBA3, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM);
> +
>  	printk("  --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n");
>  
>  	/*