linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:21:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the
> > CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock
> > while the other CPU is waiting for the completion.
> > This is not an issue if my interpretation of lockdep here is correct.
> 
> Hello Sebastian,
> 
> I think you parsed the message correctly.
> 
> The message is saying that, for example:
> 
> context A (maybe being up?)
> --
> lock(sparse_irq_lock) // wait for sparse_irq_lock in B to be released
> complete(st->done) // impossible to hit here
> 
> context B (maybe wanting to synchronize with the cpu being up?)
> --
> lock(sparse_irq_lock) // acquired successfully
> wait_for_completion(st->done) // wait for completion of st->done in A
> unlock(sparse_irq_lock) // impossible to hit here
> 
> I cannot check the kernel code at the moment.. I wonder if this scenario is
> impossible. Could you answer it?

Yes, it's impossible because cpu hotplug is globally serialized. So the cpu
down scenario cannot happen in parallel with the cpu up scenario.

Thanks,

	tglx