linux-kernel - Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex

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: <YFIEo8IVQ/Mm9jUE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 14:31:15 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
 like a trylock

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 02:12:41PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:38:21PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Waiman Long wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Treat as trylock for ww_mutex.
> > +	 */
> > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, !!ww_ctx, nest_lock, ip);
> 
> I'm confused... why isn't nest_lock working here?
> 
> For ww_mutex, we're supposed to have ctx->dep_map as a nest_lock, and
> all lock acquisitions under a nest lock should be fine. Afaict the above
> is just plain wrong.

To clarify:

	mutex_lock(&A);			ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx);
	ww_mutex_lock(&B, ctx);		mutex_lock(&A);

should still very much be a deadlock, but your 'fix' makes it not report
that.

Only order within the ww_ctx can be ignored, and that's exactly what
nest_lock should be doing.