| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZRUX0YUrXfepRGKE@Boquns-Mac-mini.home>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 23:06:09 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] srcu: Use try-lock lockdep annotation for NMI-safe
access.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 06:02:31PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> It is claimed that srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() NMI-safe. However it
> triggers a lockdep if used from NMI because lockdep expects a deadlock
> since nothing disables NMIs while the lock is acquired.
>
> Use a try-lock annotation for srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() to avoid lockdep
> complains if used from NMI.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> ---
>
> The splat:
> | ================================
> | WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> | 6.6.0-rc3-rt5+ #85 Not tainted
> | --------------------------------
> | inconsistent {INITIAL USE} -> {IN-NMI} usage.
> | swapper/0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> | ffffffff828e6c90 (console_srcu){....}-{0:0}, at: console_srcu_read_lock+0x3a/0x50
> | {INITIAL USE} state was registered at:
> …
> | CPU0
> | ----
> | lock(console_srcu);
> | <Interrupt>
> | lock(console_srcu);
> |
> | *** DEADLOCK ***
> |
>
> My guess is that trylock annotation should not apply to
> rcu_lock_acquire(). This would distinguish it from from non-NMI safe
> srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() and NMI check in rcu_read_unlock() is only
> there to survive if accidentally used in-NMI.
I think this is a "side-effect" of commit f0f44752f5f6 ("rcu: Annotate
SRCU's update-side lockdep dependencies"). In verify_lock_unused(), i.e.
the checking for NMI lock usages, the logic is that
1) read lock usages in NMI conflicts with write lock usage in
normal context (i.e. LOCKF_USED)
2) write lock usage in NMI conflicts with read and write lock usage
in normal context (i.e. LOCKF_USED | LOCKF_USED_READ)
before that commit, only read-side of SRCU is annotated, in other words,
SRCU only has read lock usage from lockdep PoV, but after that commit,
we annotate synchronize_srcu() as a write lock usage, so that we can
detect deadlocks between *normal* srcu_read_lock() and
synchronize_srcu(), however the side effect is now SRCU has a write lock
usage from lockdep PoV.
Actually in the above commit, I explicitly leave
srcu_read_lock_nmisafe() alone since its locking rules may be different
compared to srcu_read_lock(). In lockdep terms, srcu_read_lock_nmisafe()
is a !check read lock and srcu_read_lock() is a check read lock. Maybe
instead of using the trylock trick, we change lockdep to igore !check
locks for NMI context detection? Untested code as below:
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index e85b5ad3e206..1af8d44e5eb4 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -5727,8 +5727,9 @@ void lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
return;
if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled())) {
+ /* Only do NMI context checking if it's a check lock */
/* XXX allow trylock from NMI ?!? */
- if (lockdep_nmi() && !trylock) {
+ if (check && lockdep_nmi() && !trylock) {
struct held_lock hlock;
hlock.acquire_ip = ip;
Peter, thoughts?
Of course, either way, we need
Fixes: f0f44752f5f6 ("rcu: Annotate SRCU's update-side lockdep dependencies")
Regards,
Boqun
>
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 6 ++++++
> include/linux/srcu.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> index 5e5f920ade909..44aab5c0bd2c1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> @@ -303,6 +303,11 @@ static inline void rcu_lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *map)
> lock_acquire(map, 0, 0, 2, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_);
> }
>
> +static inline void rcu_try_lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *map)
> +{
> + lock_acquire(map, 0, 1, 2, 0, NULL, _THIS_IP_);
> +}
> +
> static inline void rcu_lock_release(struct lockdep_map *map)
> {
> lock_release(map, _THIS_IP_);
> @@ -317,6 +322,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void);
> #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */
>
> # define rcu_lock_acquire(a) do { } while (0)
> +# define rcu_try_lock_acquire(a) do { } while (0)
> # define rcu_lock_release(a) do { } while (0)
>
> static inline int rcu_read_lock_held(void)
> diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> index 127ef3b2e6073..236610e4a8fa5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock_nmisafe(struct srcu_struct *ssp) __acquires(ssp
>
> srcu_check_nmi_safety(ssp, true);
> retval = __srcu_read_lock_nmisafe(ssp);
> - rcu_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> + rcu_try_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> return retval;
> }
>
> --
> 2.40.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists