linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Increase 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200526212402.GH991@lca.pw>
Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 17:24:02 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Increase MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES by half

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 04:30:58PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 5/26/20 3:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:58:50PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > 
> > > I still don't understand why reading all sysfs files on this system
> > > could increase that much, but here is the lockdep file after
> > > running sysfs read to see if you could spot anything obviously,
> > > 
> > > https://cailca.github.io/files/lockdep.txt
> > 00000000f011a2a5 OPS:      20 FD:   45 BD:    1 .+.+: kn->active#834
> > 
> > is that somewhere near the number of CPUs you have?
> > 
> > Anyway, there's very long "kn->active#..." chains in there, which seems
> > to suggest some annotation is all sorts of buggered.
> > 
> It is actually one active lock per instance of the kerfs_node structures.
> That means more than 800 sysfs files are accessed in some way. As we could
> have much more than 800 sysfs files in the system, we could easily overwhelm
> the lockdep tables if we really try to access all of them.

Yes, there are a lot of those on large systems, NUMA, percpu, slab etc.
Isn't it better to extend MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES dynamically? There are
plenty of memory over there.