linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LOCKDEP: use depends on LOCKDEP

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: <c8698ce3-4995-efd6-9d1d-095dcac70dc2@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 14:31:58 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LOCKDEP: use depends on LOCKDEP_SUPPORT instead of $ARCH
 list

On 5/24/21 2:04 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 5/24/21 3:47 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 5/17/21 7:02 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 5/17/21 3:11 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Both arch/um/ and arch/xtensa/ cause a Kconfig warning for LOCKDEP.
>>>>> These arch-es select LOCKDEP_SUPPORT but they are not listed as one
>>>>> of the arch-es that LOCKDEP depends on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since (16) arch-es define the Kconfig symbol LOCKDEP_SUPPORT if they
>>>>> intend to have LOCKDEP support, replace the awkward list of
>>>>> arch-es that LOCKDEP depends on with the LOCKDEP_SUPPORT symbol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes this kconfig warning: (for both um and xtensa)
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for LOCKDEP
>>>>>     Depends on [n]: DEBUG_KERNEL [=y] && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT [=y] && (FRAME_POINTER [=n] || MIPS || PPC || S390 || MICROBLAZE || ARM || ARC || X86)
>>>>>     Selected by [y]:
>>>>>     - PROVE_LOCKING [=y] && DEBUG_KERNEL [=y] && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT [=y]
>>>>>     - LOCK_STAT [=y] && DEBUG_KERNEL [=y] && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT [=y]
>>>>>     - DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC [=y] && DEBUG_KERNEL [=y] && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT [=y]
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>>>>> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>>>>> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
>>>>> Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>
>>>>> Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
>>>>> Cc: linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org
>>>>> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
>>>>> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
>>>>> Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
>>>>> Cc: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>
>>>>> Cc: linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    lib/Kconfig.debug |    2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> --- linux-next-20210514.orig/lib/Kconfig.debug
>>>>> +++ linux-next-20210514/lib/Kconfig.debug
>>>>> @@ -1383,7 +1383,7 @@ config LOCKDEP
>>>>>        bool
>>>>>        depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT
>>>>>        select STACKTRACE
>>>>> -    depends on FRAME_POINTER || MIPS || PPC || S390 || MICROBLAZE || ARM || ARC || X86
>>>>> +    depends on FRAME_POINTER || LOCKDEP_SUPPORT
>>>> Ok - the FRAME_POINTER bit is weird. Are there any architectures that have
>>>> FRAME_POINTER defined but no LOCKDEP_SUPPORT?
>>> LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT depends on LOCKDEP_SUPPORT. So this patch is equivalent to just delete the second depends-on line.
>> Yes, if we disregard the FRAME_POINTER part.
> 
> My understanding is that the 2 depends-on statements have an implicit AND. So it is like

Right (on the implicit AND).

> DEBUG_KERNEL && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT && (FRAME_POINTER || LOCKDEP_SUPPORT). LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT is true means the (FRAME_POINTER || LOCKDEP_SUPPORT) will always be true. FRAME_POINTER is true doesn't mean the other dependencies are true. That is why I said it is equivalent to just "DEBUG_KERNEL && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT". IOW, FRAME_POINTER will play no part here.
> 

Ack. I should have done that myself.

>>
>>> Beside LOCKDEP, LATENCYTOP also have exactly the same depends-on line.
>> True, but I don't get any implication that the same patch applies there.
>> Do you?
> It is just an observation that I stumble on. It is not related to your patch.

Got it.

>>> So isn't FRAME_POINTER used mainly to support STACK_TRACE? However, LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT has already included STACK_TRACE_SUPPORT in its dependency. So why there is a FRAME_POINTER dependency?
>> FRAME_POINTER is one way but it does not seem to be required
>> for STACKTRACE_SUPPORT.
>>
>> Do you have any patch suggestions?
> 
> Is it possible to just get rid of the 2nd depends-on statement?
> 
> The 2nd depends-on line was introduced by commit 7d37cb2c912d ("lib: fix kconfig dependency on ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTER"):

and I should have looked at that history too. Thanks.

Yes, I agree, we can just delete that line...

I'll send a v2 and copy the author of commit 7d37cb2c912d as well.

> diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> index 2779c29d9981..417c3d3e521b 100644
> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug
> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug
> @@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ config LOCKDEP
>         bool
>         depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && LOCK_DEBUGGING_SUPPORT
>         select STACKTRACE
> -       select FRAME_POINTER if !MIPS && !PPC && !ARM && !S390 && !MICROBLAZE &&
> +       depends on FRAME_POINTER || MIPS || PPC || S390 || MICROBLAZE || ARM ||
>         select KALLSYMS
>         select KALLSYMS_ALL
> 
> Since STACKTRACE is selected by lockdep, maybe we can just remove the 2nd depends-on line to see if anyone complain.
> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
> 

thanks.
-- 
~Randy