linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Correct lock

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: <YgUK134eEhCXOsgk@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 13:53:43 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Cheng Jui Wang <cheng-jui.wang@...iatek.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        wsd_upstream@...iatek.com,
        Eason-YH Lin <eason-yh.lin@...iatek.com>,
        Kobe-CP Wu <kobe-cp.wu@...iatek.com>,
        Jeff-CC Hsu <jeff-cc.hsu@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: Correct lock_classes index mapping

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 06:50:11PM +0800, Cheng Jui Wang wrote:
> A kernel exception was hit when trying to dump /proc/lockdep_chains after
> lockdep report "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!":
> 
> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00054005450e05c3
> ...
> 00054005450e05c3] address between user and kernel address ranges
> ...
> pc : [0xffffffece769b3a8] string+0x50/0x10c
> lr : [0xffffffece769ac88] vsnprintf+0x468/0x69c
> ...
>  Call trace:
>   string+0x50/0x10c
>   vsnprintf+0x468/0x69c
>   seq_printf+0x8c/0xd8
>   print_name+0x64/0xf4
>   lc_show+0xb8/0x128
>   seq_read_iter+0x3cc/0x5fc
>   proc_reg_read_iter+0xdc/0x1d4
> 
> The cause of the problem is the function lock_chain_get_class() will
> shift lock_classes index by 1, but the index don't need to be shifted
> anymore since commit 01bb6f0af992 ("locking/lockdep: Change the range of
> class_idx in held_lock struct") already change the index to start from
> 0.
> 
> The lock_classes[-1] located at chain_hlocks array. When printing
> lock_classes[-1] after the chain_hlocks entries are modified, the
> exception happened.
> 
> The output of lockdep_chains are incorrect due to this problem too.
> 
> Fixes: f611e8cf98ec ("lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate chainkey")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cheng Jui Wang <cheng-jui.wang@...iatek.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 4a882f83aeb9..f8a0212189ca 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -3462,7 +3462,7 @@ struct lock_class *lock_chain_get_class(struct lock_chain *chain, int i)
>  	u16 chain_hlock = chain_hlocks[chain->base + i];
>  	unsigned int class_idx = chain_hlock_class_idx(chain_hlock);
>  
> -	return lock_classes + class_idx - 1;
> +	return lock_classes + class_idx;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -3530,7 +3530,7 @@ static void print_chain_keys_chain(struct lock_chain *chain)
>  		hlock_id = chain_hlocks[chain->base + i];
>  		chain_key = print_chain_key_iteration(hlock_id, chain_key);
>  
> -		print_lock_name(lock_classes + chain_hlock_class_idx(hlock_id) - 1);
> +		print_lock_name(lock_classes + chain_hlock_class_idx(hlock_id));
>  		printk("\n");
>  	}
>  }
> -- 
> 2.18.0
> 

<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>