linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking in do_write_seqcount_begin

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: <3a4ad958-a9a5-c367-a16d-bd89a173a628@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 20:26:02 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking
 in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()

On 2023/06/26 19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 06:25:56PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2023/06/26 17:12, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-24 15:54:12 [+0900], Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> Why not to do the same on the end side?
>>>>
>>>>  static inline void do_write_seqcount_end(seqcount_t *s)
>>>>  {
>>>> - 	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>>  	do_raw_write_seqcount_end(s);
>>>> +	seqcount_release(&s->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> I don't have a compelling argument for doing it. It is probably better
>>> to release the lock from lockdep's point of view and then really release
>>> it (so it can't be acquired before it is released).
>>
>> We must do it because this is a source of possible printk() deadlock.
>> Otherwise, I will nack on PATCH 2/2.
> 
> Don't be like that... just hate on prink like the rest of us. In fact,
> i've been patching out the actual printk code for years because its
> unusable garbage.
> 
> Will this actually still be a problem once all the fancy printk stuff
> lands? That shouldn't do synchronous prints except to 'atomic' consoles
> by default IIRC.

Commit 1007843a9190 ("mm/page_alloc: fix potential deadlock on zonelist_update_seq
seqlock") was applied to 4.14-stable trees, and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is available
since 5.3. Thus, we want a fix which can be applied to 5.4-stable and later.
This means that we can't count on all the fancy printk stuff being available.