| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191001222038.GD17454@sasha-vm>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 18:20:38 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+53383ae265fb161ef488@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 36/63] locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in
__lock_downgrade()
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:00:35AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>On 9/29/19 9:46 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2019/09/30 9:28, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 11:43:38PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> On 2019/09/29 22:54, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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().
>>>> Please drop "[PATCH 4.19 36/63] locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()".
>>>> We had a revert patch shown below in the past.
>>> We had a revert in the stable trees, but that revert was incorrect.
>>>
>>> Take a look at commit 513e1073d52e55 upstream, it patches
>>> __lock_set_class() (even though the subject line says
>>> __lock_downgrade()). So this is not a backporting error as the revert
>>> said it is, but is rather the intended location to be patched.
>>>
>>> If this is actually wrong, then it should be addressed upstream first.
>>>
>> Hmm, upstream has two commits with same author, same date, same subject, different hash, different content.
>> I couldn't find from https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1547093005-26085-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com that
>> we want to patch both __lock_set_class() and __lock_downgrade(), but I found that the tip-bot has patched
>> __lock_downgrade() on "2019-01-21 11:29" and __lock_set_class() on "2019-02-04 8:56".
>> Seems that we by error patched both functions, though patching both functions should be harmless...
>>
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4115) static int
>> 00ef9f734 kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-12-04 09:00:17 +0100 4116) __lock_set_class(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
>> 00ef9f734 kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-12-04 09:00:17 +0100 4117) struct lock_class_key *key, unsigned int subclass,
>> 00ef9f734 kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-12-04 09:00:17 +0100 4118) unsigned long ip)
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4119) {
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4120) struct task_struct *curr = current;
>> 8c8889d8e kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Imre Deak 2019-05-24 23:15:08 +0300 4121) unsigned int depth, merged = 0;
>> 41c2c5b86 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:15 +0900 4122) struct held_lock *hlock;
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4123) struct lock_class *class;
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4124) int i;
>> 64aa348ed kernel/lockdep.c (Peter Zijlstra 2008-08-11 09:30:21 +0200 4125)
>> 513e1073d kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4126) if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
>> 513e1073d kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4127) return 0;
>> 513e1073d kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4128)
>>
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4162) static int __lock_downgrade(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned long ip)
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4163) {
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4164) struct task_struct *curr = current;
>> 8c8889d8e kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Imre Deak 2019-05-24 23:15:08 +0300 4165) unsigned int depth, merged = 0;
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4166) struct held_lock *hlock;
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4167) int i;
>> 6419c4af7 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (J. R. Okajima 2017-02-03 01:38:17 +0900 4168)
>> 714925805 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4169) if (unlikely(!debug_locks))
>> 714925805 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4170) return 0;
>> 714925805 kernel/locking/lockdep.c (Waiman Long 2019-01-09 23:03:25 -0500 4171)
>>
>> commit 513e1073d52e55b8024b4f238a48de7587c64ccf
>> Author: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> Date: Wed Jan 9 23:03:25 2019 -0500
>>
>> locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()
>>
>> commit 71492580571467fb7177aade19c18ce7486267f5
>> Author: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> Date: Wed Jan 9 23:03:25 2019 -0500
>>
>> locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()
>>
>As I had said before, it looks like the git-apply mixed up the location
>due to the fact that the hunks are exactly the same for both locations.
>So if the patch to be applied does not have the right line number, it
>will get applied to the wrong location first.
I very much agree, my point is that *both* patches are upstream right
now, and if one of those patches is wrong then it should be reverted
upstream, and we'd be happy to take the revert.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists