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]

Message-ID: <Y+y3r8Q5GT+oJsvd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:45:03 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        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 Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:22:28AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:

> Ah, right, I was missing the fact that it works with 2 classes...
> 
> But I think with only one class, the nest_lock() still works, right?
> In other words, if P and Cn are the same lock class in your example.

I don't think so, but I don't think I've carefully considered that case.

> Also seems I gave a wrong answer to Alan, just to clarify, the following
> is not a deadlock to lockdep:
> 
> T1:
> 	mutex_lock(P)
> 	mutex_lock_next_lock(C1, P)
> 	mutex_lock_next_lock(C2, P)
> 	mutex_lock(B)
> 
> T2:
> 	mutex_lock(P)
> 	mutex_lock(B)
> 	mutex_lock_next_lock(C1, P)
> 	mutex_lock_next_lock(C2, P)
> 

This should in fact complain about a CB-BC deadlock, (but I've not
tested it, just going on memories of how I implemented it).

> Because of any pair of
> 
> 	mutex_lock(L);
> 	... // other locks maybe
> 	mutex_lock_nest_lock(M, L);
> 
> lockdep will not add M into the dependency graph, since it's nested and
> should be serialized by L.

We do enter M into the dependency graph, but instead ignore M-M
recursion. Specifically so that we might catch the above deadlock vs B.