linux-kernel - [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: fix possible recursive locking detected warning

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240711071001.3475337-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:10:01 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
CC: <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: fix possible recursive locking detected warning

When tries to demote 1G hugetlb folios, a lockdep warning is observed:

============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
bash/710 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffff8f0a7850 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0x244/0x460

but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&h->resize_lock);
  lock(&h->resize_lock);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

4 locks held by bash/710:
 #0: ffff8f118439c3f0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
 #1: ffff8f11893b9e88 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0xf8/0x1d0
 #2: ffff8f1183dc4428 (kn->active#98){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x100/0x1d0
 #3: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460

stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 710 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0
 __lock_acquire+0x10f2/0x1ca0
 lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0
 __mutex_lock+0x6d/0x400
 demote_store+0x244/0x460
 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0
 vfs_write+0x380/0x540
 ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
 do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7fa61db14887
RSP: 002b:00007ffc56c48358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fa61db14887
RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055a030050220 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 000055a030050220 R08: 00007fa61dbd1460 R09: 000000007fffffff
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002
R13: 00007fa61dc1b780 R14: 00007fa61dc17600 R15: 00007fa61dc16a00
 </TASK>

Lockdep considers this an AA deadlock because the different resize_lock
mutexes reside in the same lockdep class, but this is a false positive.
Place them in distinct classes to avoid these warnings.

Fixes: 8531fc6f52f5 ("hugetlb: add hugetlb demote page support")
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
---
 mm/hugetlb.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 45fd3bc75332..2004e6d3f7ca 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -4659,6 +4659,8 @@ bool __init __attribute((weak)) arch_hugetlb_valid_size(unsigned long size)
 	return size == HPAGE_SIZE;
 }
 
+static struct lock_class_key hugetlb_resize_keys[HUGE_MAX_HSTATE];
+
 void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned int order)
 {
 	struct hstate *h;
@@ -4671,6 +4673,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned int order)
 	BUG_ON(order < order_base_2(__NR_USED_SUBPAGE));
 	h = &hstates[hugetlb_max_hstate++];
 	mutex_init(&h->resize_lock);
+	lockdep_set_class(&h->resize_lock, &hugetlb_resize_keys[hstate_index(h)]);
 	h->order = order;
 	h->mask = ~(huge_page_size(h) - 1);
 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; ++i)
-- 
2.33.0