linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal locks

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:56:09 -0800
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] locking/lockdep: Add a new class of terminal
 locks

On 11/12/2018 02:22 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 07:30:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:10:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/10/2018 09:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:04:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW., if you are interested in more radical approaches to optimize 
>>>>>>> lockdep, we could also add a static checker via objtool driven call graph 
>>>>>>> analysis, and mark those locks terminal that we can prove are terminal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would require the unified call graph of the kernel image and of all 
>>>>>>> modules to be examined in a final pass, but that's within the principal 
>>>>>>> scope of objtool. (This 'final pass' could also be done during bootup, at 
>>>>>>> least in initial versions.)
>>>>>> Something like this is needed for objtool LTO support as well. I just
>>>>>> dread the build time 'regressions' this will introduce :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The final link pass is already by far the most expensive part (as
>>>>>> measured in wall-time) of building a kernel, adding more work there
>>>>>> would really suck :/
>>>>> I think the idea is to make objtool have the capability to do that. It
>>>>> doesn't mean we need to turn it on by default in every build.
>>>> Yeah.
>>>>
>>>> Also note that much of the objtool legwork would be on a per file basis 
>>>> which is reasonably parallelized already. On x86 it's also already done 
>>>> for every ORC build i.e. every distro build and the incremental overhead 
>>>> from also extracting locking dependencies should be reasonably small.
>>>>
>>>> The final search of the global graph would be serialized but still 
>>>> reasonably fast as these are all 'class' level dependencies which are 
>>>> much less numerous than runtime dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. I think we are talking about tens of thousands of dependencies, not 
>>>> tens of millions.
>>>>
>>>> At least in theory. ;-)
>>> Generating a unified call graph sounds very expensive (and very far
>>> beyond what objtool can do today).
>> Well, objtool already goes through the instruction stream and recognizes 
>> function calls - so it can in effect generate a stream of "function x 
>> called by function y" data, correct?
> Yeah, though it would be quite simple to get the same data with a simple
> awk script at link time.
>
>>>  Also, what about function pointers?
>> So maybe it's possible to enumerate all potential values for function 
>> pointers with a reasonably simple compiler plugin and work from there?
> I think this would be somewhere between very difficult and impossible to
> do properly.  I can't even imagine how this would be implemented in a
> compiler plugin.  But I'd love to be proven wrong on that.

I would say we have to assume for the worst when a function pointer is
being called while holding a lock unless we are able to find out all its
possible targets.

Cheers,
Longman