linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kernel/locking/ww_mutex: Add per-lock lock-check helpers

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20251120113824.GJ4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:38:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>,
	Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] kernel/locking/ww_mutex: Add per-lock lock-check
 helpers

On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 12:03:40PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> Code using ww_mutexes typically by design have a number of
> such mutexes sharing the same ww_class, and within a ww transaction
> they are all lockdep annotated using a nest_lock which means
> that multiple ww_mutexes of the same lockdep class may be locked at
> the same time. That means that lock_is_held() returns true and
> lockdep_assert_held() doesn't fire as long as there is a *single*
> ww_mutex held of the same class. IOW within a WW transaction.
> 
> Code using these mutexes typically want to assert that individual
> ww_mutexes are held. Not that any ww_mutex of the same class is
> held.
> 
> Introduce functions that can be used for that.
> 
> RFC: Placement of the functions? lockdep.c? Are the #ifdefs testing for
> the correct config?

Yeah, I think so.

Ack on this.

> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/ww_mutex.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c   | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> index 45ff6f7a872b..7bc0f533dea6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -380,4 +380,22 @@ static inline bool ww_mutex_is_locked(struct ww_mutex *lock)
>  	return ww_mutex_base_is_locked(&lock->base);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> +
> +bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock);
> +
> +#else /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> +
> +static inline bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> +
> +static inline void ww_mutex_assert_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	lockdep_assert(ww_mutex_held(lock));
> +}
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index de7d6702cd96..37868b739efd 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -1174,3 +1174,13 @@ int atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(atomic_t *cnt, struct mutex *lock)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> +
> +bool ww_mutex_held(struct ww_mutex *lock)
> +{
> +	return __ww_mutex_owner(&lock->base) == current;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ww_mutex_held);
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> -- 
> 2.51.1
>