linux-kernel - Re: [BACKPORT 4.14.y v3 1/3] 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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 10:05:37 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, orsonzhai@...il.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BACKPORT 4.14.y v3 1/3] locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check
 in __lock_downgrade()

On 9/25/19 6:01 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>
> [Upstream commit 513e1073d52e55b8024b4f238a48de7587c64ccf]
>
> Tetsuo Handa had reported he saw an incorrect "downgrading a read lock"
> warning right after a previous lockdep warning. It is likely that the
> previous warning turned off lock debugging causing the lockdep to have
> inconsistency states leading to the lock downgrade warning.
>
> Fix that by add a check for debug_locks at the beginning of
> __lock_downgrade().
>
> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
> Reported-by: syzbot+53383ae265fb161ef488@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1547093005-26085-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c |    3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 565005a..5c370c6 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -3650,6 +3650,9 @@ static int reacquire_held_locks(struct task_struct *curr, unsigned int depth,
>  	unsigned int depth;
>  	int i;
>  
> +	if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	depth = curr->lockdep_depth;
>  	/*
>  	 * This function is about (re)setting the class of a held lock,

Apparently, there are 2 such patches in the upstream kernel - commit
513e1073d52e55b8024b4f238a48de7587c64ccf and
71492580571467fb7177aade19c18ce7486267f5. These are probably caused by
the fact that there are 2 places in the code that can match the hunks.
Anyway, this looks like it is applying to the wrong function. It should
be applied to __lock_downgrade. Though it shouldn't harm if it is
applied to the wrong function.

Cheers,
Longman