| 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: <c3be9cb4-06cf-45c5-841f-3fa016e4d087@csgroup.eu>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:04:50 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: George Stark <gnstark@...utedevices.com>, Marek Behún
<marek.behun@....cz>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
CC: "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, "pavel@....cz"
<pavel@....cz>, "lee@...nel.org" <lee@...nel.org>, "vadimp@...dia.com"
<vadimp@...dia.com>, "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>, "hdegoede@...hat.com"
<hdegoede@...hat.com>, "mazziesaccount@...il.com" <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "mingo@...hat.com"
<mingo@...hat.com>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
"boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "nikitos.tr@...il.com"
<nikitos.tr@...il.com>, "kabel@...nel.org" <kabel@...nel.org>,
"linux-leds@...r.kernel.org" <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"kernel@...utedevices.com" <kernel@...utedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] locking/mutex: introduce devm_mutex_init
Le 12/03/2024 à 00:47, George Stark a écrit :
> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de gnstark@...utedevices.com.
> Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> 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:
For sure it is a must. I'm not used to it either hence my overlook.
>
>
> 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; \
> +})
> +
I think it would be preferable to minimise the number of macros.
If I were you I would keep your devm_mutex_init() as is but rename it
__devm_mutex_init() and just remove the mutex_init() from it, then add
only one macro that works independant of CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES:
#define devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex) \
({ \
mutex_init(mutex); \
__devm_mutex_init(dev, mutex); \
})
With that, no need of a second version of the macro and no need for the
typecheck either.
Note the __ which is a clear indication that allthough that function is
declared in public mutex.h, it is not meant to be used outside of it.
> 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