linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate

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]

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 18:09:16 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] drivers/core: Replace lockdep_set_novalidate_class()
 with unique class keys

On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:03:14PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 05:51:11PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Basically if you have two lock instances A and B with the same class,
> > and you know that locking ordering is always A -> B, then you can do
> > 
> > 	mutex_lock(A);
> > 	mutex_lock_nest_lock(B, A); // lock B.
> > 
> > to tell the lockdep this is not deadlock, plus lockdep will treat the
> > acquisition of A and the precondition of acquisition B, so the following
> > is not a deadlock as well:
> > 
> > T1:
> > 	mutex_lock(A);
> > 	mutex_lock(C);
> > 	mutex_lock_nest_lock(B, A);
> > 
> > T2:
> > 	mutex_lock(A);
> > 	mutex_lock_nest_lock(B, A);
> > 	mutex_lock(C);
> 
> Why isn't this treated as a deadlock?  It sure looks like a deadlock to 
> me.  Is this an example where lockdep just doesn't get the right answer?
> 

Because A serializes B and C, so that particular piece of code doesn't
cause deadlock. Note that you can still use you normal mutex_lock() for
B, so if there is more code:

T3:
	mutex_lock(C);
	mutex_lock(B);

lockdep will report deadlock.

Regards,
Boqun

> Alan Stern