| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 10:37:25 -0700
From: Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, sherryy@...roid.com,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
On 2018-05-24 06:51, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:49:31PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:26:35AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:35 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In other words, qrwlock requires consistent locking order wrt spinlocks.
>> >
>> > I *thought* lockdep already tracked and detected this. Or is that only with
>> > with the sleeping versions?
>>
>> There are patches in-flight to detect this:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152483640529740&w=2k
>>
>> as part of Boqun's work into recursive read locking.
>>
>
Hi Linus and Will,
Thank you for quick responses and providing the suggestions.
Kernel version is locked for couple of products and same issue observed
on both 4.14.41
and 4.9.96 kernels. We can only accept the stable updates from upstream
for these products.
If QUEUED_RWLOCKS works on above listed kernel versions without any
issues, we can enabled QUEUED_RWLOCKS.
Can we go ahead with Linus suggestion for these kernel version?
So that IRQ wont be disabled for quite a long time.
static void tasklist_write_lock(void)
{
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
while (!write_trylock(&tasklist_lock)) {
local_irq_restore(flags);
do { cpu_relax(); } while
(write_islocked(&tasklist_lock));
local_irq_disable();
}
}
-Thanks, Prasad
> Yeah, lemme put some details here:
>
> So we have three cases:
>
> Case #1 (from Will)
>
> P0: P1: P2:
>
> spin_lock(&slock) read_lock(&rwlock)
> write_lock(&rwlock)
> read_lock(&rwlock) spin_lock(&slock)
>
> , which is a deadlock, and couldn't not be detected by lockdep yet. And
> lockdep could detect this with the patch I attach at the end of the
> mail.
>
> Case #2
>
> P0: P1: P2:
>
> <in irq handler>
> spin_lock(&slock) read_lock(&rwlock)
> write_lock(&rwlock)
> read_lock(&rwlock) spin_lock_irq(&slock)
>
> , which is not a deadlock, as the read_lock() on P0 can use the unfair
> fastpass.
>
> Case #3
>
> P0: P1: P2:
>
> <in irq handler>
> spin_lock_irq(&slock) read_lock(&rwlock)
> write_lock_irq(&rwlock)
> read_lock(&rwlock) spin_lock(&slock)
>
> , which is a deadlock, as the read_lock() on P0 cannot use the
> fastpass.
> To detect this and not to make case #2 as a false positive, the
> recursive deadlock detection patchset is needed, the WIP version is at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/boqun/linux.git
> arr-rfc-wip
>
> The code is done, I'm just working on the rework for documention stuff,
> so if anyone is interested, could try it out ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> ------------------->8
> Subject: [PATCH] locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()
>
> On the archs using QUEUED_RWLOCKS, read_lock() is not always a
> recursive
> read lock, actually it's only recursive if in_interrupt() is true. So
> change the annotation accordingly to catch more deadlocks.
>
> Note we used to treat read_lock() as pure recursive read locks in
> lib/locking-seftest.c, and this is useful, especially for the lockdep
> development selftest, so we keep this via a variable to force switching
> lock annotation for read_lock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
> ---
> include/linux/lockdep.h | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> lib/locking-selftest.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 6fc77d4dbdcd..07793986c063 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ extern int lock_stat;
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
> +#include <linux/preempt.h>
>
> /*
> * We'd rather not expose kernel/lockdep_states.h this wide, but we do
> need
> @@ -540,6 +541,31 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct
> task_struct *curr)
> }
> #endif
>
> +/* Variable used to make lockdep treat read_lock() as recursive in
> selftests */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS
> +extern unsigned int force_read_lock_recursive;
> +#else /* CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS */
> +#define force_read_lock_recursive 0
> +#endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +/*
> + * read_lock() is recursive if:
> + * 1. We force lockdep think this way in selftests or
> + * 2. The implementation is not queued read/write lock or
> + * 3. The locker is at an in_interrupt() context.
> + */
> +static inline bool read_lock_is_recursive(void)
> +{
> + return force_read_lock_recursive ||
> + !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_QUEUED_RWLOCKS) ||
> + in_interrupt();
> +}
> +#else /* CONFIG_LOCKDEP */
> +/* If !LOCKDEP, the value is meaningless */
> +#define read_lock_is_recursive() 0
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * For trivial one-depth nesting of a lock-class, the following
> * global define can be used. (Subsystems with multiple levels
> @@ -561,7 +587,14 @@ static inline void print_irqtrace_events(struct
> task_struct *curr)
> #define spin_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i)
>
> #define rwlock_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t,
> NULL, i)
> -#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t,
> i) lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i)
> +#define rwlock_acquire_read(l, s, t, i) \
> +do { \
> + if (read_lock_is_recursive()) \
> + lock_acquire_shared_recursive(l, s, t, NULL, i); \
> + else \
> + lock_acquire_shared(l, s, t, NULL, i); \
> +} while (0)
> +
> #define rwlock_release(l, n, i) lock_release(l, n, i)
>
> #define seqcount_acquire(l, s, t, i) lock_acquire_exclusive(l, s, t,
> NULL, i)
> diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> index b5c1293ce147..dd92f8ad83d5 100644
> --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> * Change this to 1 if you want to see the failure printouts:
> */
> static unsigned int debug_locks_verbose;
> +unsigned int force_read_lock_recursive;
>
> static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(ww_lockdep);
>
> @@ -1978,6 +1979,11 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
> return;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * treats read_lock() as recursive read locks for testing purpose
> + */
> + force_read_lock_recursive = 1;
> +
> /*
> * Run the testsuite:
> */
> @@ -2072,6 +2078,11 @@ void locking_selftest(void)
>
> ww_tests();
>
> + force_read_lock_recursive = 0;
> + /*
> + * queued_read_lock() specific test cases can be put here
> + */
> +
> if (unexpected_testcase_failures) {
>
> printk("-----------------------------------------------------------------\n");
> debug_locks = 0;
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists