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: <e1bcd7fb-3a40-f207-ee19-d276c8b8bb75@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Mar 2021 10:03:07 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/urgent] locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock()
 like a trylock

On 3/17/21 9:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
>
I will take a deeper look into why that is the case.

Cheers,
Longman

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ