linux-kernel - Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 09:03:25 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:41 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:09 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I fully agree with this.
> > If we calculate the subclass for lock_nested() very well, I think we
> > might use static lockdep key for addr_list_lock_key too. I think
> > "dev->upper_level" and "dev->lower_level" might be used as subclass.
> > These values are updated recursively in master/nomaster operation.
>
> Great! I will think about this too. At least I will remove the other keys
> for net-next.

Hi Cong,

Was this done? This still harms testing of the whole kernel. Disabling
LOCKDEP does not look good either...