linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain

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, 5 Feb 2020 10:48:38 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] locking/lockdep: Reuse freed chain_hlocks entries

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:57:09AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:

> Wait, it is possible that we can have deadlock like this:
> 
>   cpu 0               cpu 1
>   -----               -----
>   lock A              lock B
>   <irq>               <irq>
>   lock B              lock A
>  
> If we eliminate 1-entry chain, will that impact our ability to detect this
> kind of deadlock?

I'm thinking that should trigger irq-inversion (irq-on vs in-irq) on
either A or B (depending on timing).

AFAICT the irq-state tracking is outside of validate_chain().

This is also why I think your separate_irq_context() change is not
needed.

validate_chain() really only checks the per-context lock nesting, and
there, a single lock doesn't do very much. Hence my proposed patch.