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:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:58:54 +0000
From:   Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, matorola@...il.com,
        mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668 ("lockdep:
 Fix lockdep recursion")



On 26/10/20 15:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:55:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:56:03AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>> That smells like the same issue reported here:
>>>>
>>>>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201022111700.GZ2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>>>>
>>>> Make sure you have commit:
>>>>
>>>>   f8e48a3dca06 ("lockdep: Fix preemption WARN for spurious IRQ-enable")
>>>>
>>>> (in Linus' tree by now) and do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT enabled?
>>>
>>> Yes, CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled.
>>
>> Bummer :/
>>
>>> I'll try with that commit and let you know, however it's gonna take a
>>> few hours to build a kernel and run all fstests (on that test box it
>>> takes over 3 hours) to confirm that fixes the issue.
>>
>> *ouch*, 3 hours is painful. How long to make it sick with the current
>> kernel? quicker I would hope?
>>
>>> Thanks for the quick reply!
>>
>> Anyway, I don't think that commit can actually explain the issue :/
>>
>> The false positive on lockdep_assert_held() happens when the recursion
>> count is !0, however we _should_ be having IRQs disabled when
>> lockdep_recursion > 0, so that should never be observable.
>>
>> My hope was that DEBUG_PREEMPT would trigger on one of the
>> __this_cpu_{inc,dec}(lockdep_recursion) instance, because that would
>> then be a clear violation.
>>
>> And you're seeing this on x86, right?
>>
>> Let me puzzle moar..
> 
> So I might have an explanation for the Sparc64 fail, but that can't
> explain x86 :/
> 
> I initially thought raw_cpu_read() was OK, since if it is !0 we have
> IRQs disabled and can't get migrated, so if we get migrated both CPUs
> must have 0 and it doesn't matter which 0 we read.
> 
> And while that is true; it isn't the whole store, on pretty much all
> architectures (except x86) this can result in computing the address for
> one CPU, getting migrated, the old CPU continuing execution with another
> task (possibly setting recursion) and then the new CPU reading the value
> of the old CPU, which is no longer 0.
> 
> I already fixed a bunch of that in:
> 
>   baffd723e44d ("lockdep: Revert "lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables"")
> 
> but clearly this one got crossed.
> 
> Still, that leaves me puzzled over you seeing this on x86 :/

Hi Peter,

I still get the same issue with 5.10-rc2.
Is there any non-merged patch I should try, or anything I can help with?

Thanks.

> 
> Anatoly, could you try linus+tip/locking/urgent and the below on your
> Sparc, please?
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 3e99dfef8408..a3041463e42d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static inline bool lockdep_enabled(void)
>  	if (!debug_locks)
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (raw_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion))
> +	if (this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion))
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (current->lockdep_recursion)
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists