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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170824050749.GE6772@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:07:49 +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 Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:26:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:43:23AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 03:49:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yeah, its just something we never got around to. Once every so often I
> get reminded of it, like now. But then it sits on the todo list and
> never quite happens.

I want to try it.