linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/lockdep: Add a faster path in __lock

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]

Date:   Tue,  2 Oct 2018 16:19:18 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] locking/lockdep: Add a faster path in __lock_release()

When __lock_release() is called, the most likely unlock scenario is
on the innermost lock in the chain.  In this case, we can skip some of
the checks and provide a faster path to completion.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index bd59163b0550..b7774ff2516f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3625,6 +3625,13 @@ __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 	curr->lockdep_depth = i;
 	curr->curr_chain_key = hlock->prev_chain_key;
 
+	/*
+	 * The most likely case is when the unlock is on the innermost
+	 * lock. In this case, we are done!
+	 */
+	if (i == depth - 1)
+		return 1;
+
 	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i + 1))
 		return 0;
 
@@ -3632,10 +3639,14 @@ __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 	 * We had N bottles of beer on the wall, we drank one, but now
 	 * there's not N-1 bottles of beer left on the wall...
 	 */
-	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1))
-		return 0;
+	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth-1);
 
-	return 1;
+	/*
+	 * Since reacquire_held_locks() would have called check_chain_key()
+	 * indirectly via __lock_acquire(), we don't need to do it again
+	 * on return.
+	 */
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int __lock_is_held(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
-- 
2.18.0