[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+O6toMmAKBSILMf@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 10:07:34 -0500
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
with unique class keys
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:30:25PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Commit 1704f47b50b5 ("lockdep: Add novalidate class for dev->mutex
> conversion") made it impossible to find real deadlocks unless timing
> dependent testings manage to trigger hung task like [1] and [2]. And
> lockdep_set_novalidate_class() remained for more than one decade due to
> a fear of false positives [3]. But not sharing mutex_init() could make
> it possible to find real deadlocks without triggering hung task [4].
> Thus, let's assign a unique class key on each "struct device"->mutex.
>
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=2d6ac90723742279e101 [1]
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=2e39bc6569d281acbcfb [2]
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y98FLlr7jkiFlV0k@rowland.harvard.edu [3]
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/827177aa-bb64-87a9-e1af-dfe070744045@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp [4]
> Suggested-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
You must never do this!
I did not put my Signed-off-by: on the patch I sent to you. I do not
want it added to that patch or to this one. You should never put
somebody else's Signed-off-by: on a patch unless they tell you it's okay
to do so.
I'm happy to have people test this patch, but I do not want anybody
think that it is ready to be merged into the kernel.
> Co-developed-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> ---
> Hello, syzkaller users.
>
> We made a patch that keeps lockdep validation enabled on "struct dev->mutex".
> Will you try this patch and see if this patch causes boot failures and/or
> too frequent crashes to continue testing.
>
> drivers/base/core.c | 7 ++++++-
> include/linux/device.h | 1 +
> include/linux/lockdep.h | 6 ++++++
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 7 +++++++
> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index a3e14143ec0c..c30ecbc4d60e 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -2322,6 +2322,9 @@ static void device_release(struct kobject *kobj)
> devres_release_all(dev);
>
> kfree(dev->dma_range_map);
> + mutex_destroy(&dev->mutex);
> + if (!lockdep_static_obj(dev))
> + lockdep_unregister_key(&dev->mutex_key);
>
> if (dev->release)
> dev->release(dev);
> @@ -2941,7 +2944,9 @@ void device_initialize(struct device *dev)
> kobject_init(&dev->kobj, &device_ktype);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->dma_pools);
> mutex_init(&dev->mutex);
> - lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&dev->mutex);
> + if (!lockdep_static_obj(dev))
> + lockdep_register_key(&dev->mutex_key);
> + lockdep_set_class(&dev->mutex, &dev->mutex_key);
> spin_lock_init(&dev->devres_lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->devres_head);
> device_pm_init(dev);
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index 44e3acae7b36..bdaca9f54dc2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ struct device {
> struct mutex mutex; /* mutex to synchronize calls to
> * its driver.
> */
> + struct lock_class_key mutex_key; /* Unique key for each device */
>
> struct dev_links_info links;
> struct dev_pm_info power;
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 1f1099dac3f0..5afc999a7e56 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ do { \
> current->lockdep_recursion -= LOCKDEP_OFF; \
> } while (0)
>
> +extern int lockdep_static_obj(const void *obj);
> extern void lockdep_register_key(struct lock_class_key *key);
> extern void lockdep_unregister_key(struct lock_class_key *key);
>
> @@ -391,6 +392,11 @@ static inline void lockdep_set_selftest_task(struct task_struct *task)
> # define lockdep_free_key_range(start, size) do { } while (0)
> # define lockdep_sys_exit() do { } while (0)
>
> +static inline int lockdep_static_obj(const void *obj)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static inline void lockdep_register_key(struct lock_class_key *key)
> {
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index e3375bc40dad..74c0113646f1 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -857,6 +857,13 @@ static int static_obj(const void *obj)
> */
> return is_module_address(addr) || is_module_percpu_address(addr);
> }
> +
> +int lockdep_static_obj(const void *obj)
> +{
> + return static_obj(obj);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(lockdep_static_obj);
What's the point of adding a new function that just calls the old
function? Why not simply rename the old function?
Alan Stern
> +
> #endif
>
> /*
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists