linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/15] locking/lockdep: Free lock classes 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]

Message-ID: <20190110152035.GF30894@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:20:35 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, longman@...hat.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/15] locking/lockdep: Free lock classes that are no
 longer in use

Hi Bart,

Sorry for the delay; real-life and holidays got in the way :/

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 01:29:54PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> +/* Remove a class from a lock chain. Must be called with the graph lock held. */
> +static void remove_class_from_lock_chain(struct lock_chain *chain,
> +					 struct lock_class *class)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> +	struct lock_chain *new_chain;
> +	u64 chain_key;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i = chain->base; i < chain->base + chain->depth; i++) {
> +		if (chain_hlocks[i] != class - lock_classes)
> +			continue;
> +		/* The code below leaks one chain_hlock[] entry. */
> +		if (--chain->depth > 0)
> +			memmove(&chain_hlocks[i], &chain_hlocks[i + 1],
> +				(chain->base + chain->depth - i) *
> +				sizeof(chain_hlocks[0]));
> +		/*
> +		 * Each lock class occurs at most once in a lock chain so once
> +		 * we found a match we can break out of this loop.
> +		 */
> +		goto recalc;
> +	}
> +	/* Since the chain has not been modified, return. */
> +	return;
> +
> +recalc:
> +	chain_key = 0;
> +	for (i = chain->base; i < chain->base + chain->depth; i++)
> +		chain_key = iterate_chain_key(chain_key, chain_hlocks[i] + 1);
> +	if (chain->depth && chain->chain_key == chain_key)
> +		return;
> +	/* Overwrite the chain key for concurrent RCU readers. */
> +	WRITE_ONCE(chain->chain_key, chain_key);
> +	/*
> +	 * Note: calling hlist_del_rcu() from inside a
> +	 * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() loop is safe.
> +	 */
> +	hlist_del_rcu(&chain->entry);
> +	if (chain->depth == 0)
> +		return;
> +	/*
> +	 * If the modified lock chain matches an existing lock chain, drop
> +	 * the modified lock chain.
> +	 */
> +	if (lookup_chain_cache(chain_key))
> +		return;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_lock_chains >= MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS)) {
> +		debug_locks_off();
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	/*
> +	 * Leak *chain because it is not safe to reinsert it before an RCU
> +	 * grace period has expired.
> +	 */
> +	new_chain = lock_chains + nr_lock_chains++;
> +	*new_chain = *chain;
> +	hlist_add_head_rcu(&new_chain->entry, chainhashentry(chain_key));
> +#endif
> +}

Leaking a chain_hlocks[] and lock_chains[] entry is pretty gross, but
yes that should work.