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  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]
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:36:24 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, chuhu@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] debugobjects: Disable lockdep tracking of
 debugobjects internal locks

On 09/25/2018 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:20:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 09/25/2018 11:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:41:09AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/lib/debugobjects.c b/lib/debugobjects.c
>>>> index 70935ed91125..68d72ed9ca22 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
>>>> @@ -1106,8 +1106,15 @@ void __init debug_objects_early_init(void)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	int i;
>>>>  
>>>> -	for (i = 0; i < ODEBUG_HASH_SIZE; i++)
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * We don't need lockdep to verify correctness of debugobjects
>>>> +	 * internal locks.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&pool_lock);
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < ODEBUG_HASH_SIZE; i++) {
>>>>  		raw_spin_lock_init(&obj_hash[i].lock);
>>>> +		lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&obj_hash[i].lock);
>>>> +	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < ODEBUG_POOL_SIZE; i++)
>>>>  		hlist_add_head(&obj_static_pool[i].node, &obj_pool);
>>> NAK, we do not _EVER_ set novalidate if it can at all be avoided.
>>>
>>> If there is a severe performance problem with lockdep, try and cure
>>> that. But really, who runs lockdep kernels on 8 sockets?
>> We do. It is part of our testing process to run both production and
>> debug kernels on a variety of different machines to see if anything
>> breaks. Some of them just happen to be 8-socket systems.
>>
>> The internal locks in the debugobjects code don't interact with other
>> locks at all as memory allocation isn't called with those lock held. So
>> disabling lockdep for those locks won't materially affect the accuracy
>> of the lockdep code.
>>
>> How about the ability to declare a class of locks as terminal in the
>> sense that no further lock acquisition is allowed while holding a
>> terminal lock? That will allow the the lockdep code to fast track the
>> handling of those locks and hopefully prevent hard lockup problem like that.
> Who guarantees they stay leaf locks? What if someone mucks up the
> debugobject locking because its Monday morning and they haven't had
> their coffee yet. You want lockdep to catch all that.

Lockdep will need to do checking to guarantee that.

> Also, where is the performance benefit here. The normal lock_acquire
> path doesn't change gobal state (it will not see new lock ordering in
> 99%+ of the cases).
>
> Typically we only push the lock on the task local lock stack, compute
> the new hash, and do the hash lookup, find it already exists and return.
>
> So what is the expensive part, and can we do something about that?

I will need to do some experimentation to find out. Will update this
thread with my finding.

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists