[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241004101601.GQ18071@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 12:16:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@...khorst.se>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock
requirements
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:56:11PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
> number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
> keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
> is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
> but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
> memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
> there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
> itself has been released.
>
> In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
> and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
> mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
I'm assuming you actually hit this?
Anyway, work around seems sane enough, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists