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  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:   Sat, 16 May 2020 21:15:55 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <>
To:     Qian Cai <>, Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Will Deacon <>, Ingo Molnar <>
Cc:     David Howells <>,
        Alexander Viro <>,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low" with 6979

On 5/15/20 1:21 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
> Lockdep is screwed here in next-20200514 due to "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low". One of the traces below pointed to this linux-next commit,
> 8c8e824d4ef0 watch_queue: Introduce a non-repeating system-unique superblock ID
> which was accidentally just showed up in next-20200514 along with,
> 46896d79c514 watch_queue: Add superblock notifications
> I did have here,
> While MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES is 32768, I noticed there is one type of lock had a lot along,
> # grep  'type->s_umount_key’ /proc/lockdep_chains | wc -l
> 6979

The lock_list table entries are for tracking a lock's forward and 
backward dependencies. The lockdep_chains isn't the right lockdep file 
to look at. Instead, check the lockdep files for entries with the 
maximum BD (backward dependency) + FD (forward dependency). That will 
give you a better view of which locks are consuming most of the 
lock_list entries. Also take a look at lockdep_stats for an overall view 
of how much various table entries are being consumed.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists