linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rtmutex: allow specifying a subclass for nested locking

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: <20180528071751.GT12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 09:17:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, Peter Chang <dpf@...gle.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepadinamani@...gle.com>,
        John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rtmutex: allow specifying a subclass for nested
 locking

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:19:36PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:

> > +static inline void __rt_mutex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock, unsigned int subclass)
> > +{
> > +	might_sleep();
> > +
> > +	mutex_acquire(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > +	rt_mutex_fastlock(lock, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, rt_mutex_slowlock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > +/**
> > + * rt_mutex_lock_nested - lock a rt_mutex
> 
> This ifdef seems consistent with other nested locking primitives, but its
> kind of confusing.
> 
> The Kconfig.debug for DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC says:
> 
> config DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> 	bool "Lock debugging: detect incorrect freeing of live locks"
> 	[...]
> 	help
> 	 This feature will check whether any held lock (spinlock, rwlock,
> 	 mutex or rwsem) is incorrectly freed by the kernel, via any of the
> 	 memory-freeing routines (kfree(), kmem_cache_free(), free_pages(),
> 	 vfree(), etc.), whether a live lock is incorrectly reinitialized via
> 	 spin_lock_init()/mutex_init()/etc., or whether there is any lock
> 	 held during task exit.
> 
> Shouldn't this ideally be ifdef'd under PROVE_LOCKING for this and other
> locking primitives? Any idea what's the reason? I know PROVE_LOCKING selects
> DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC but still..

No, the reason is that DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC needs the lockdep hooks to know
which locks are held, so it can warn when we try and free a held one.
PROVE_LOCKING builds upon that.

The the locking primitives should key off of DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC for
introducing the hooks.