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]

Date:   Sat, 30 May 2020 00:33:54 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:25:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 06:14:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Yeah, maybe. I was thinking we could keep IRQ state running. But you're
> right, if we mess up the IRQ state itself this might generate a wee
> mess.

That is, mostly the IRQ state recovers when we mess up. It's only when
we then trigger more fail that we crash and burn, and that will likely
already give more warnings.

But I can put the debug_locks check back.