linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation

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: <20170905085727.GV3240@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:57:27 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, david@...morbit.com,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, oleg@...hat.com,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:08:25AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So you worry about max_active==1 ? Or you worry about pool->lock or
> > about the thread setup? I'm still not sure.
> 
> So the thing about pool->lock is that its a leaf lock, we take nothing

I think the following sentence is a key, I hope...

Leaf locks can also create dependecies with *crosslocks*. These
dependencies are not built between holding locks like typical locks.

> inside it. Futhermore its a spinlock and therefore blocking things like
> completions or page-lock cannot form a deadlock with it.

I agree. Now we should be only interested in blocking things.

> It is also fully isolated inside workqueue.c and easy to audit.
> 
> This is why I really can't be arsed about it.
> 
> And the whole setup stuff isn't properly preserved between works in any
> case, only the first few works would ever see that history, so why
> bother.

As I said in another reply, what about (1), (3) and (5) in my example?