linux-kernel - Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion

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: <20201014221152.GS3249@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:11:52 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:53:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:34:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > commit 7deaa04b02298001426730ed0e6214ac20d1a1c1
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Date:   Tue Oct 13 12:39:23 2020 -0700
> > 
> >     rcu: Prevent lockdep-RCU splats on lock acquisition/release
> >     
> >     The rcu_cpu_starting() and rcu_report_dead() functions transition the
> >     current CPU between online and offline state from an RCU perspective.
> >     Unfortunately, this means that the rcu_cpu_starting() function's lock
> >     acquisition and the rcu_report_dead() function's lock releases happen
> >     while the CPU is offline from an RCU perspective, which can result in
> >     lockdep-RCU splats about using RCU from an offline CPU.  In reality,
> >     aside from the splats, both transitions are safe because a new grace
> >     period cannot start until these functions release their locks.
> 
> But we call the trace_* crud before we acquire the lock. Are you sure
> that's a false-positive? 

You lost me on this one.

I am assuming that you are talking about rcu_cpu_starting(), because
that is the one where RCU is not initially watching, that is, the
case where tracing before the lock acquisition would be a problem.
You cannot be talking about rcu_cpu_starting() itself, because it does
not do any tracing before acquiring the lock.  But if you are talking
about the caller of rcu_cpu_starting(), then that caller should put the
rcu_cpu_starting() before the tracing.  But that would be the other
patch earlier in this thread that was proposing moving the call to
rcu_cpu_starting() much earlier in CPU bringup.

So what am I missing here?

							Thanx, Paul