linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check 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]

Message-ID: <b6469b3a-0c92-8281-ed7a-5364c5de0615@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:23:10 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in
 __lock_downgrade()

On 2019/01/10 19:21, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> @@ -3535,6 +3535,9 @@ static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
>>         unsigned int depth;
>>         int i;
>>
>> +       if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
>> +               return 0;
>> +
> 
> Are we sure this resolves the problem rather than makes the
> inconsistency window smaller?

As far as I know, this should resolve the problem.

> I don't understand all surrounding code, but looking just at this
> function it looks like it may just pepper over the problem. Say, we
> pass this check when lockdep was still turned on. Then this thread is
> preempted for some time (e.g. a virtual CPU), then another thread
> started reporting a warning, turned lockdep off, some information
> wasn't collected, and this this task resumes and reports a false
> warning.

What this function checks is whether current thread is holding rw_semaphore
for write. Since the information of held locks are per "struct task_struct"
record, if lockdep is still enabled as of entry of this function, there must
be a lockdep record that current thread is holding rw_semaphore for write
if current thread is actually holding rw_semaphore for write. Therefore,
preemption/interrupts can't erase the lockdep record that current thread is
holding rw_semaphore, even if lockdep is turned off after passing this check.

> Or we are holding the mutex here, and the fact that we are holding it
> ensures that no other task will take it and no information will be
> lost?
> Quite a tricky moment, perhaps deserves a comment.

I think many other functions check debug_locks upon entry of functions.

> 
>>         depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
>>         /*
>>          * This function is about (re)setting the class of a held lock,