linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking

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: <20200529181401.1f01bdc5@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 18:14:01 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...capital.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org, a.darwish@...utronix.de,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] lockdep: Prepare for NMI IRQ state tracking

On Fri, 29 May 2020 23:27:41 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> There is no reason not to always, accurately, track IRQ state.
> 
> This change also makes IRQ state tracking ignore lockdep_off().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c |   33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -3646,7 +3646,13 @@ static void __trace_hardirqs_on_caller(v
>   */
>  void lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare(unsigned long ip)
>  {
> -	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || current->lockdep_recursion))

Why remove the check for debug_locks? Isn't that there to disable
everything at once to prevent more warnings to be printed?

Also, isn't there other ways that we could have recursion besides NMIs?
Say we do a printk inside here, or call something that may also enable
interrupts? I thought the recursion check was also to prevent lockdep
infrastructure calling something that lockdep monitors being a problem?

Or am I missing something?

-- Steve


> +	/*
> +	 * NMIs do not (and cannot) track lock dependencies, nothing to do.
> +	 */
> +	if (in_nmi())
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
>  		return;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(current->hardirqs_enabled)) {
> @@ -3692,7 +3698,24 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *curr = current;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
> +	/*
> +	 * NMIs can happen in the middle of local_irq_{en,dis}able() where the
> +	 * tracking state and hardware state are out of sync.
> +	 *
> +	 * NMIs must save lockdep_hardirqs_enabled() to restore IRQ state from,
> +	 * and not rely on hardware state like normal interrupts.
> +	 */
> +	if (in_nmi()) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Skip:
> +		 *  - recursion check, because NMI can hit lockdep;
> +		 *  - hardware state check, because above;
> +		 *  - chain_key check, see lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare().
> +		 */
> +		goto skip_checks;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
>  		return;
>  
>  	if (curr->hardirqs_enabled) {
> @@ -3720,6 +3743,7 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_on(unsigne
>  	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirq_chain_key !=
>  			    current->curr_chain_key);
>  
> +skip_checks:
>  	/* we'll do an OFF -> ON transition: */
>  	curr->hardirqs_enabled = 1;
>  	curr->hardirq_enable_ip = ip;
> @@ -3735,7 +3759,10 @@ void noinstr lockdep_hardirqs_off(unsign
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *curr = current;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(!debug_locks || curr->lockdep_recursion))
> +	/*
> +	 * NMIs can happen in lockdep.
> +	 */
> +	if (!in_nmi() && DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_recursion & LOCKDEP_RECURSION_MASK))
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
>