| 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: <cfceef12-883e-4593-9dca-50768acb1aa9@salutedevices.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 02:47:10 +0300
From: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
To: Marek Behún <marek.behun@....cz>, Waiman Long
<longman@...hat.com>
CC: <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, <pavel@....cz>, <lee@...nel.org>,
<vadimp@...dia.com>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>, <npiggin@...il.com>,
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
<mazziesaccount@...il.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<will@...nel.org>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>, <nikitos.tr@...il.com>,
<kabel@...nel.org>, <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<kernel@...utedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init
Hello Waiman, Marek
Thanks for the review.
I've never used lockdep for debug but it seems preferable to
keep that feature working. It could be look like this:
diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
index f7611c092db7..574f6de6084d 100644
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
#include <linux/cleanup.h>
#include <linux/mutex_types.h>
+struct device;
+
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
# define __DEP_MAP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname) \
, .dep_map = { \
@@ -115,10 +117,31 @@ do { \
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
+int debug_devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
+
+#define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex) \
+({ \
+ int ret; \
+ mutex_init(mutex); \
+ ret = debug_devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex); \
+ ret; \
+})
+
void mutex_destroy(struct mutex *lock);
#else
+/*
+* When CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is off mutex_destroy is just a nop so
+* there's no really need to register it in devm subsystem.
+*/
+#define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex) \
+({ \
+ typecheck(struct device *, dev); \
+ mutex_init(mutex); \
+ 0; \
+})
+
static inline void mutex_destroy(struct mutex *lock) {}
#endif
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
index bc8abb8549d2..967a5367c79a 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
+#include <linux/device.h>
#include "mutex.h"
@@ -89,6 +90,16 @@ void debug_mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char
*name,
lock->magic = lock;
}
+static void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
+{
+ mutex_destroy(res);
+}
+
+int debug_devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
+{
+ return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
+}
+
/***
* mutex_destroy - mark a mutex unusable
* @lock: the mutex to be destroyed
--
2.25.1
And now I would drop the the refactoring patch with moving down
mutex_destroy. devm block is big enough to be declared standalone.
On 3/7/24 19:44, Marek Behún wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:39:46 -0500
> Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/24 04:56, Marek Behún wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:40:26AM +0300, George Stark wrote:
>>>> Using of devm API leads to a certain order of releasing resources.
>>>> So all dependent resources which are not devm-wrapped should be deleted
>>>> with respect to devm-release order. Mutex is one of such objects that
>>>> often is bound to other resources and has no own devm wrapping.
>>>> Since mutex_destroy() actually does nothing in non-debug builds
>>>> frequently calling mutex_destroy() is just ignored which is safe for now
>>>> but wrong formally and can lead to a problem if mutex_destroy() will be
>>>> extended so introduce devm_mutex_init()
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
>>>> ---
>>>> Hello Christophe. Hope you don't mind I put you SoB tag because you helped alot
>>>> to make this patch happen.
>>>>
>>>> include/linux/mutex.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>> kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> index f7611c092db7..9bcf72cb941a 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
>>>> #include <linux/cleanup.h>
>>>> #include <linux/mutex_types.h>
>>>>
>>>> +struct device;
>>>> +
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>>>> # define __DEP_MAP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(lockname) \
>>>> , .dep_map = { \
>>>> @@ -115,10 +117,21 @@ do { \
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
>>>>
>>>> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock);
>>>> void mutex_destroy(struct mutex *lock);
>>>>
>>>> #else
>>>>
>>>> +static inline int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * since mutex_destroy is nop actually there's no need to register it
>>>> + * in devm subsystem.
>>>> + */
>>>> + mutex_init(lock);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static inline void mutex_destroy(struct mutex *lock) {}
>>>>
>>>> #endif
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
>>>> index bc8abb8549d2..c9efab1a8026 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>> #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include "mutex.h"
>>>>
>>>> @@ -104,3 +105,24 @@ void mutex_destroy(struct mutex *lock)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mutex_destroy);
>>>> +
>>>> +static void devm_mutex_release(void *res)
>>>> +{
>>>> + mutex_destroy(res);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * devm_mutex_init - Resource-managed mutex initialization
>>>> + * @dev: Device which lifetime mutex is bound to
>>>> + * @lock: Pointer to a mutex
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Initialize mutex which is automatically destroyed when the driver is detached.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns: 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *lock)
>>>> +{
>>>> + mutex_init(lock);
>>>> + return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, lock);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_mutex_init);
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> look at
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7013bf9e-2663-4613-ae61-61872e81355b@redhat.com/
>>> where Matthew and Hans explain that devm_mutex_init needs to be a macro
>>> because of the static lockdep key.
>>>
>>> so this should be something like:
>>>
>>> static inline int __devm_mutex_init(struct device *dev, struct mutex *mutex,
>>> const char *name,
>>> struct lock_class_key *key)
>>> {
>>> __mutex_init(mutex, name, key);
>>> return devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, devm_mutex_release, mutex);
>>> }
>>>
>>> #define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex) \
>>> do { \
>>> static struct lock_class_key __key; \
>>> \
>>> __devm_mutex_init(dev, (mutex), #mutex, &__key); \
>>> } while (0);
>>>
>>>
>>> Marek
>>
>> Making devm_mutex_init() a function will make all the devm_mutex share
>> the same lockdep key. Making it a macro will make each caller of
>> devm_mutex_init() have a distinct lockdep key. It all depends on whether
>> all the devm_mutexes have the same lock usage pattern or not and whether
>> it is possible for one devm_mutex to be nested inside another. So either
>> way can be fine depending on the mutex usage pattern. My suggestion is
>> to use a function, if possible, unless it will cause a false positive
>> lockdep splat as there is a limit on the maximum # of lockdep keys that
>> can be used.
>
> devm_mutex_init() should behave like other similar function
> initializing stuff with resource management. I.e. it should behave like
> mutex_init(), but with resource management.
>
> mutex_init() is a macro generating static lockdep key for each instance,
> so devm_mutex_init() should also generate static lockdep key for each
> instance.
>
> Marek
--
Best regards
George
Powered by blists - more mailing lists