LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng" <tip-bot2@linutronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
x86 <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [tip: locking/core] locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 12:58:33 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <158470911332.28353.7259360463548170185.tip-bot2@tip-bot2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004
Author: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
AuthorDate: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:12:55 +08:00
Committer: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CommitterDate: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:06:25 +01:00
locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()
Qian Cai reported a bug when PROVE_RCU_LIST=y, and read on /proc/lockdep
triggered a warning:
[ ] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirqs_enabled)
...
[ ] Call Trace:
[ ] lock_is_held_type+0x5d/0x150
[ ] ? rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online+0x64/0x80
[ ] rcu_read_lock_any_held+0xac/0x100
[ ] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0xc0/0xc0
[ ] ? __slab_free+0x421/0x540
[ ] ? kasan_kmalloc+0x9/0x10
[ ] ? __kmalloc_node+0x1d7/0x320
[ ] ? kvmalloc_node+0x6f/0x80
[ ] __bfs+0x28a/0x3c0
[ ] ? class_equal+0x30/0x30
[ ] lockdep_count_forward_deps+0x11a/0x1a0
The warning got triggered because lockdep_count_forward_deps() call
__bfs() without current->lockdep_recursion being set, as a result
a lockdep internal function (__bfs()) is checked by lockdep, which is
unexpected, and the inconsistency between the irq-off state and the
state traced by lockdep caused the warning.
Apart from this warning, lockdep internal functions like __bfs() should
always be protected by current->lockdep_recursion to avoid potential
deadlocks and data inconsistency, therefore add the
current->lockdep_recursion on-and-off section to protect __bfs() in both
lockdep_count_forward_deps() and lockdep_count_backward_deps()
Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index e55c4ee..2564950 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1723,9 +1723,11 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_forward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
this.class = class;
raw_local_irq_save(flags);
+ current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
arch_spin_lock(&lockdep_lock);
ret = __lockdep_count_forward_deps(&this);
arch_spin_unlock(&lockdep_lock);
+ current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
return ret;
@@ -1750,9 +1752,11 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
this.class = class;
raw_local_irq_save(flags);
+ current->lockdep_recursion = 1;
arch_spin_lock(&lockdep_lock);
ret = __lockdep_count_backward_deps(&this);
arch_spin_unlock(&lockdep_lock);
+ current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
return ret;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-20 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-12 15:12 [PATCH] " Boqun Feng
2020-03-13 9:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-15 1:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-16 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-16 15:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-20 12:58 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/lockdep: Fix bad recursion pattern tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-13 10:21 ` [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps() Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-20 12:58 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/lockdep: Rework lockdep_lock tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-20 12:58 ` tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=158470911332.28353.7259360463548170185.tip-bot2@tip-bot2 \
--to=tip-bot2@linutronix.de \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [tip: locking/core] locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).