linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Provide one lock class key per work_on

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: <ZS-rCIejToOlJcqm@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 23:53:12 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Provide one lock class key per work_on_cpu()
 callsite

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 05:07:02PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> All callers of work_on_cpu() share the same lock class key for all the
> functions queued. As a result the workqueue related locking scenario for
> a function A may be spuriously accounted as an inversion against the
> locking scenario of function B such as in the following model:
> 
> 	long A(void *arg)
> 	{
> 		mutex_lock(&mutex);
> 		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> 	}
> 
> 	long B(void *arg)
> 	{
> 	}
> 
> 	void launchA(void)
> 	{
> 		work_on_cpu(0, A, NULL);
> 	}
> 
> 	void launchB(void)
> 	{
> 		mutex_lock(&mutex);
> 		work_on_cpu(1, B, NULL);
> 		mutex_unlock(&mutex);
> 	}
> 
> launchA and launchB running concurrently have no chance to deadlock.
> However the above can be reported by lockdep as a possible locking
> inversion because the works containing A() and B() are treated as
> belonging to the same locking class.

Sorry about the delay. I missed this one. Applied to wq/for-6.7.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun