linux-kernel - Re: [perf] lockdep warning between cpu_add_remove

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y86nuqyUwXUWchQs@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 16:28:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [perf] lockdep warning between cpu_add_remove_lock and
 &dev->mutex.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:10:57PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/01/23 20:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 07:39:24PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> I tried to apply below patch, and hit lockdep warning during boot.
> >> Can you break this dependency?
> > 
> >   cpu_add_remove_lock
> >     cpu_hotplug_lock
> >       pmus_lock
> >         dev->mutex		(pmu_dev_alloc)
> > 
> > vs
> > 
> >   dev->mutex
> >     cpu_add_remove_lock		(pci_device_probe)
> > 
> > 
> > Possibly something like this might do -- I'm not entirely sure it's
> > fully correct, needs a bit of auditing.
> > 
> 
> After applying your diff, lockdep message changed like below. Is this
> the reason commit 1704f47b50b5 ("lockdep: Add novalidate class for
> dev->mutex conversion") was applied?

*sigh*, clearly I should have actually read the slat and not assumed it
was another perf splat.

Yes, something along these lines is why it was done. I think it was this
thread, but there might have been more:

  https://lore.kernel.org/all/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0804171117450.18040-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org/