linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Show address of "struct lockdep_map" at print

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: <20180326160549.GL4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:05:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Show address of "struct lockdep_map" at
 print_lock().

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 07:18:33PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> [  628.863629] 2 locks held by a.out/1165:
> [  628.867533]  #0: [ffffa3b438472e48] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: __do_page_fault+0x16f/0x4d0
> [  628.873570]  #1: [ffffa3b4f2c52ac0] (&mapping->i_mmap_rwsem){++++}, at: rmap_walk_file+0x1d9/0x2a0

Maybe change the string a little, because from the above it's not at all
effident that the [] thing is the lock instance.

> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 12a2805..7835233 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -556,9 +556,9 @@ static void print_lock(struct held_lock *hlock)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> +	printk(KERN_CONT "[%px]", hlock->instance);

And yeah, what Michal said, that wants to be %p, we're fine with the
thing being hashed, all we want to do is equivalience, which can be done
with hashed pinters too.

>  	print_lock_name(lock_classes + class_idx - 1);
> -	printk(KERN_CONT ", at: [<%px>] %pS\n",
> -		(void *)hlock->acquire_ip, (void *)hlock->acquire_ip);
> +	printk(KERN_CONT ", at: %pS\n", (void *)hlock->acquire_ip);
>  }

Otherwise no real objection to the patch.