[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250927055058.3772-1-buckzhang1212@yeah.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 22:50:58 -0700
From: buckzhang1212@...h.net
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: buckzhang1212@...h.net
Subject: [PATCH] locking/rwsema:add DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON to warn invalid rwsem
From: "buck.zhang" <buckzhang1212@...h.net>
Here is a kernel exception about rwsem and I can recreate it stably.
First We define a struct contains a rwsem.
Then allocate this struct by kmalloc without calling init_rwsem.
Finally when multiple tasks call use rwsem together,kernel will panic.
This lock is used normally when only one task is using at a time.
the exception reason is that sem->wait_list is an invalid kernel list.
I want to add more warnings when enable CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS
kernel crash log:
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000
pc: rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x428/0xccc
lr: rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x844/0xccc
sp: ffffffc0870abb00
x29: ffffffc0870abb60 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: ffffffffffffff05
........
x2: ffffff809d57d830 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000
Call trace:
rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x428/0xccc
down_write+0xa8/0x108
Test case:
struct chip_rwsema {
struct rwsema sem;
};
static void work_handler1(struct chip_rwsema *csem)
{
down_write(&(csem->sem));
}
static void work_handler2(struct chip_rwsema *csem)
{
down_write(&(csem->sem));
}
static void chip_tsem(void)
{
struct chip_rwsema *csem;
csem = kzalloc(sizeof(struct chip_rwsema),GFP_KERNEL);
work_handler1(csem);
......
work_handler2(csem);
}
Signed-off-by: buck.zhang <buckzhang1212@...h.net>
---
kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
index 24df4d98f..bfc038573 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -75,7 +75,17 @@
list_empty(&(sem)->wait_list) ? "" : "not ")) \
debug_locks_off(); \
} while (0)
+
+/*
+ * list_invalid - check whether sem->waitlist is invalid
+ * @head: the list to test.
+ */
+static inline int rwsem_waitlist_invalid(const struct list_head *head)
+{
+ return (unsigned long) READ_ONCE(head->next) < PAGE_OFFSET;
+}
#else
+# define rwsem_waitlist_invalid(sem)
# define DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(c, sem)
#endif
@@ -1034,6 +1044,9 @@ rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long count, unsigned int stat
waiter.timeout = jiffies + RWSEM_WAIT_TIMEOUT;
waiter.handoff_set = false;
+ /* In case the rwsem is uninitiated, add more warning */
+ DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(rwsem_waitlist_invalid(&sem->wait_list), sem);
+
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
/*
@@ -1128,6 +1141,9 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
waiter.timeout = jiffies + RWSEM_WAIT_TIMEOUT;
waiter.handoff_set = false;
+ /* In case the rwsem is uninitiated, add more warning */
+ DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(rwsem_waitlist_invalid(&sem->wait_list), sem);
+
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
rwsem_add_waiter(sem, &waiter);
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists