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]

Message-ID: <20170831073739.ytexc7omldyb5lgy@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:37:39 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF +
> > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33.
> > 
> > That's smaller than ERROR and thus perf_event_enable() no-ops on events
> > for offline CPUs (maybe we should try and plumb an error return for
> > IOC_ENABLE).
> > 
> > On online we subtract the HOTPLUG_OFFSET again and the event becomes a
> > regular OFF, after which perf_event_enable() should work again.
> 
> I haven't come around to test that as I was busy cleaning up the unholy
> mess in the watchdog code.
> 
> One other thing I stumbled over is:
> 
>     perf_event_create()
>       ....
>       x86_hw_reserve(event)
> 
>       if (__x86_pmu_event_init(event) < 0)
>       	    event->destroy(event);
> 	    	x86_hw_release()
> 		    ....
> 		    cpus_read_lock();
> 
> If that happens from a hotplug function, we are doomed.
> 
> I mean, that particular watchdog event won't fail if the watchdog code
> would verify that already at init time (which it does soon), but in general
> event creation during hotplug is dangerous.

Arghh!!!

And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding
the hotplug_lock during PREPARE.

I'll try and think...