linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Silence lock nesting splat

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:12:33 +0200
From:   Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
To:     Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
CC:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, kernel <kernel@...s.com>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Silence lock nesting splat

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> There are two different approaches for this kind of nested locking. One 
> is to use mutex_lock_nested(). This works if there is a strict 
> hierarchy. The I2C framework for example has a function to determine the 
> position of a I2C mux in the hierarchy and uses that for locking. See 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c#L1151.
> 
> I'm not sure this directly translates to IIO since the 
> consumers/producers don't have to be a in strict hierarchy.  And if it 
> is a complex graph it can be difficult to figure out the right level for 
> mutex_lock_nested().
> 
> The other method is to mark each mutex as its own class. lockdep does 
> the lock checking based on the lock class and by default the same mutex 
> of different instances is considered the same class to keep the resource 
> requirements for the checker lower.
> 
> Regmap for example does this. See 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c#L795.
> 
> This could be a solution for IIO with the downside how the additional 
> work for the checker. But as long as there are only a few IIO devices 
> per system that should be OK. We could also only set the per device lock 
> class if in kernel consumers are enabled.

The second method certainly sounds like a better fix, since it also
still warns if one actually takes the same iio_dev mutex twice.  I'll
respin the patch.  Thanks.