linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] locking/lockdep: Fix false warning of check_wait

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: <CAEVVKH9rG46B7SH2cQNVFQOJywgbcPaz+gLKk1Zhioh8zB5vjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:29:53 +0800
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
To:     Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc:     Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/3] locking/lockdep: Fix false warning of check_wait_context()

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:04 PM Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/12/21 4:18 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:43 AM Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/11/21 10:14 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> >>> From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
> >>>
> >>> We now always get a "Invalid wait context" warning with
> >>> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y, see the full warning below:
> >>>
> >>>        [    0.705900] =============================
> >>>        [    0.706002] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> >>>        [    0.706180] 5.13.0+ #4 Not tainted
> >>>        [    0.706349] -----------------------------
> >> I believe the purpose of CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is experimental
> >> and it is turned off by default. Turning it on can cause problem as
> >> shown in your lockdep splat. Limiting it to just PREEMPT_RT will defeat
> >> its purpose to find potential spinlock nesting problem in non-PREEMPT_RT
> >> kernel.
> > As far as I know, a spinlock can nest another spinlock. In
> > non-PREEMPT_RT kernel
> > spin_lock and raw_spin_lock are same , so here acquiring a spin_lock in hardirq
> > context is acceptable, the warning is not needed. My knowledge on this
> > is not enough,
> > Will dig into this.
> >
> >> The point is to fix the issue found,
> > Agree. I thought there was a spinlock usage issue, but by checking
> > deactivate_slab context,
> > looks like the spinlock usage is well. Maybe I'm missing something?
>
> Yes, spinlock and raw spinlock are the same in non-RT kernel. They are
> only different in RT kernel. However, non-RT kernel is also more heavily
> tested than the RT kernel counterpart. The purpose of this config option
> is to expose spinlock nesting problem in more areas of the code. If you
> look at the config help text of PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING:
>
>          help
>           Enable the raw_spinlock vs. spinlock nesting checks which ensure
>           that the lock nesting rules for PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels are
>           not violated.
>
>           NOTE: There are known nesting problems. So if you enable this
>           option expect lockdep splats until these problems have been fully
>           addressed which is work in progress. This config switch allows to
>           identify and analyze these problems. It will be removed and the
>           check permanentely enabled once the main issues have been fixed.
>
>           If unsure, select N.
Yes, I checked before sending patch, but didn't understand everything.
Thanks, :-).

> So lockdep splat is expected. It will take time to address all the
> issues found.
Ok.

Regards,
Xiongwei
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>