linux-kernel - [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/19] lockdep: Explicitly flag likely false-positive report

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:   Tue, 11 May 2021 15:52:52 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/19] lockdep: Explicitly flag likely false-positive report

The reason that lockdep_rcu_suspicious() prints the value of debug_locks
is because a value of zero indicates a likely false positive.  This can
work, but is a bit obtuse.  This commit therefore explicitly calls out
the possibility of a false positive.

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 48d736aa03b2..d6c3c987009d 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -6393,6 +6393,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible void lockdep_sys_exit(void)
 void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
 {
 	struct task_struct *curr = current;
+	int dl = READ_ONCE(debug_locks);
 
 	/* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */
 	pr_warn("\n");
@@ -6402,11 +6403,12 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
 	pr_warn("-----------------------------\n");
 	pr_warn("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
 	pr_warn("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
-	pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
+	pr_warn("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n%s",
 	       !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
 			? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n"
 			: "",
-	       rcu_scheduler_active, debug_locks);
+	       rcu_scheduler_active, dl,
+	       dl ? "" : "Possible false positive due to lockdep disabling via debug_locks = 0\n");
 
 	/*
 	 * If a CPU is in the RCU-free window in idle (ie: in the section
-- 
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23