netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

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: <CAMbhsRScr+3Zk5Bi6390bGRbtE4oh2H-mHrGHS0wew5hdkivUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 4 May 2013 13:27:23 -0700
From:	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Ben Chan <benchan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> On Fri 2013-05-03 14:04:10, Colin Cross wrote:
>> From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
>>
>> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.  Holding a lock can cause a
>> deadlock if the lock is later acquired in the suspend or hibernate path
>> (e.g.  by dpm).  Holding a lock can also cause a deadlock in the case of
>> cgroup_freezer if a lock is held inside a frozen cgroup that is later
>> acquired by a process outside that group.
>
> Ok, but this does not explain why
>
>> --- a/include/linux/debug_locks.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/debug_locks.h
>> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ struct task_struct;
>>  extern void debug_show_all_locks(void);
>>  extern void debug_show_held_locks(struct task_struct *task);
>>  extern void debug_check_no_locks_freed(const void *from, unsigned long len);
>> -extern void debug_check_no_locks_held(struct task_struct *task);
>> +extern void debug_check_no_locks_held(void);
>>  #else
>>  static inline void debug_show_all_locks(void)
>>  {
>
> Removing task_struct argument from  those functions is good idea?

This is an existing patch that was merged in 3.9 and then reverted
again, so it has already been reviewed and accepted once.

>> --- a/kernel/exit.c
>> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
>> @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ void do_exit(long code)
>>       /*
>>        * Make sure we are holding no locks:
>>        */
>> -     debug_check_no_locks_held(tsk);
>> +     debug_check_no_locks_held();
>
> Is task guaranteed == current?

Yes, the first line of do_exit is:
        struct task_struct *tsk = current;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html