linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: report name and key when look_up_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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sun, 18 Sep 2022 11:31:46 -0700
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: report name and key when look_up_lock_class()
 got confused

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 12:01:30AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Printing this information will be helpful.
> 
>   ------------[ cut here ]------------
>   class->name=slock-AF_INET6 lock->name=l2tp_sock lock->key=l2tp_socket_class
>   WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 9237 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:940 look_up_lock_class+0xcc/0x140
>   Modules linked in:
>   CPU: 2 PID: 9237 Comm: a.out Not tainted 6.0.0-rc5-00094-ga335366bad13-dirty #860
>   Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
>   RIP: 0010:look_up_lock_class+0xcc/0x140
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
>  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 64a13eb56078..a22469dbeeee 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -934,8 +934,10 @@ look_up_lock_class(const struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass)
>  			 * Huh! same key, different name? Did someone trample
>  			 * on some memory? We're most confused.
>  			 */
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(class->name != lock->name &&
> -				     lock->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__);
> +			WARN_ONCE(class->name != lock->name &&
> +				  lock->key != &__lockdep_no_validate__,
> +				  "class->name=%s lock->name=%s lock->key=%ps\n",
> +				  class->name, lock->name, lock->key);

Maybe more human readable information like:

	  "Looking for class \"%s\" with key %ps, but found a different class \"%s\" with the same key\n"
	  lock->name, lock->key, class->name);

?

Regards,
Boqun

>  			return class;
>  		}
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>