From 1d9bd981e0fe8586a7965fcabca7fc1dd0d1235c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Boqun Feng Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:12:55 +0800 Subject: locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps() [ Upstream commit 25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004 ] 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 Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin --- kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/locking') diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c index a419696709a1..0a00720d3ccc 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c @@ -1265,9 +1265,11 @@ 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; @@ -1292,9 +1294,11 @@ 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; -- cgit v1.2.3 From c3d5d9c42c2b78765570b49b19669081243e7945 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:19:01 -0800 Subject: locktorture: Print ratio of acquisitions, not failures commit 80c503e0e68fbe271680ab48f0fe29bc034b01b7 upstream. The __torture_print_stats() function in locktorture.c carefully initializes local variable "min" to statp[0].n_lock_acquired, but then compares it to statp[i].n_lock_fail. Given that the .n_lock_fail field should normally be zero, and given the initialization, it seems reasonable to display the maximum and minimum number acquisitions instead of miscomputing the maximum and minimum number of failures. This commit therefore switches from failures to acquisitions. And this turns out to be not only a day-zero bug, but entirely my own fault. I hate it when that happens! Fixes: 0af3fe1efa53 ("locktorture: Add a lock-torture kernel module") Reported-by: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Will Deacon Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/locking/locktorture.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/locking') diff --git a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c index d580b7d6ee6d..ad5aea269f76 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/locktorture.c +++ b/kernel/locking/locktorture.c @@ -655,10 +655,10 @@ static void __torture_print_stats(char *page, if (statp[i].n_lock_fail) fail = true; sum += statp[i].n_lock_acquired; - if (max < statp[i].n_lock_fail) - max = statp[i].n_lock_fail; - if (min > statp[i].n_lock_fail) - min = statp[i].n_lock_fail; + if (max < statp[i].n_lock_acquired) + max = statp[i].n_lock_acquired; + if (min > statp[i].n_lock_acquired) + min = statp[i].n_lock_acquired; } page += sprintf(page, "%s: Total: %lld Max/Min: %ld/%ld %s Fail: %d %s\n", -- cgit v1.2.3