linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 22/27] locking/lockdep: Reuse list entries that are no longer in use

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:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:49:02 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, johannes.berg@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/27] locking/lockdep: Reuse list entries that are no
 longer in use

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:43:20PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Instead of abandoning elements of list_entries[] that are no longer in
> use, make alloc_list_entry() reuse array elements that have been freed.

> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 43327a1dd488..01e55fca7c2c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -183,6 +183,11 @@ static inline void lockdep_copy_map(struct lockdep_map *to,
>  struct lock_list {
>  	/* Entry in locks_after or locks_before. */
>  	struct list_head		lock_order_entry;
> +	/*
> +	 * Entry in all_list_entries when in use and entry in
> +	 * free_list_entries when not in use.
> +	 */
> +	struct list_head		alloc_entry;
>  	struct lock_class		*class;
>  	struct lock_class		*links_to;
>  	struct stack_trace		trace;

> +static LIST_HEAD(all_list_entries);
> +static LIST_HEAD(free_list_entries);
>  

> @@ -862,7 +867,10 @@ register_lock_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass, int force)
>   */
>  static struct lock_list *alloc_list_entry(void)
>  {
> -	if (nr_list_entries >= MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES) {
> +	struct lock_list *e = list_first_entry_or_null(&free_list_entries,
> +						       typeof(*e), alloc_entry);
> +
> +	if (!e) {
>  		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
>  			return NULL;
>  
> @@ -870,7 +878,8 @@ static struct lock_list *alloc_list_entry(void)
>  		dump_stack();
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
> -	return list_entries + nr_list_entries++;
> +	list_move_tail(&e->alloc_entry, &all_list_entries);
> +	return e;
>  }

> @@ -4235,19 +4244,19 @@ static void zap_class(struct list_head *zapped_classes,
>  		      struct lock_class *class)
>  {
>  	struct lock_class *links_to;
> +	struct lock_list *entry, *tmp;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Remove all dependencies this lock is
>  	 * involved in:
>  	 */
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &all_list_entries, alloc_entry) {
>  		if (entry->class != class && entry->links_to != class)
>  			continue;
>  		links_to = entry->links_to;
>  		WARN_ON_ONCE(entry->class == links_to);
>  		list_del_rcu(&entry->lock_order_entry);
> +		list_move(&entry->alloc_entry, &free_list_entries);
>  		entry->class = NULL;
>  		entry->links_to = NULL;
>  		check_free_class(zapped_classes, class);

Hurm.. I'm confused here.

The reason you cannot re-use lock_order_entry for the free list is
because list_del_rcu(), right? But if so, then what ensures the
list_entry is not re-used before it's grace-period?