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 13:37:41 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <>
Cc:     Qian Cai <>, Boqun Feng <>,
        Chris Wilson <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Will Deacon <>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Avoid to modify chain keys in validate_chain()

Chris Wilson reported a problem spotted by check_chain_key(): a chain
key got changed in validate_chain() because we modify the ->read in
validate_chain() to skip checks for dependency adding, and ->read is
taken into calculation for chain key since commit f611e8cf98ec
("lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate

Fix this by avoiding to modify ->read in validate_chain() based on two
facts: a) since we now support recursive read lock detection, there is
no need to skip checks for dependency adding for recursive readers, b)
since we have a), there is only one case left (nest_lock) where we want
to skip checks in validate_chain(), we simply remove the modification
for ->read and rely on the return value of check_deadlock() to skip the
dependency adding.

Reported-by: Chris Wilson <>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <>

I managed to get a reproducer for the problem Chris reported, please see
patch #2. With this patch, that problem gets fixed.

This small patchset is based on your locking/core, patch #2 actually
relies on your "s/raw_spin/spin" changes, thanks for taking care of that


 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 19 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 3e99dfef8408..a294326fd998 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2765,7 +2765,9 @@ print_deadlock_bug(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
  * (Note that this has to be done separately, because the graph cannot
  * detect such classes of deadlocks.)
- * Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 on recursive read
+ * Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 if another lock with the same
+ * lock class is held but nest_lock is also held, i.e. we rely on the
+ * nest_lock to avoid the deadlock.
 static int
 check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
@@ -2788,7 +2790,7 @@ check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 		 * lock class (i.e. read_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
 		if ((next->read == 2) && prev->read)
-			return 2;
+			continue;
 		 * We're holding the nest_lock, which serializes this lock's
@@ -3592,16 +3594,13 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
 		if (!ret)
 			return 0;
-		/*
-		 * Mark recursive read, as we jump over it when
-		 * building dependencies (just like we jump over
-		 * trylock entries):
-		 */
-		if (ret == 2)
-			hlock->read = 2;
 		 * Add dependency only if this lock is not the head
-		 * of the chain, and if it's not a secondary read-lock:
+		 * of the chain, and if the new lock introduces no more
+		 * lock dependency (because we already hold a lock with the
+		 * same lock class) nor deadlock (because the nest_lock
+		 * serializes nesting locks), see the comments for
+		 * check_deadlock().
 		if (!chain_head && ret != 2) {
 			if (!check_prevs_add(curr, hlock))

Powered by blists - more mailing lists