kernel/linux.git/include/linux/lockdep.h, branch v5.10.258

locking/lockdep: Avoid creating new name string literals in lockdep_set_subclass()

2024-12-14T18:48:09+00:00

commit d7fe143cb115076fed0126ad8cf5ba6c3e575e43 upstream. Syzbot reports a problem that a warning will be triggered while searching a lock class in look_up_lock_class(). The cause of the issue is that a new name is created and used by lockdep_set_subclass() instead of using the existing one. This results in a lock instance has a different name pointer than previous registered one stored in lock class, and WARN_ONCE() is triggered because of that in look_up_lock_class(). To fix this, change lockdep_set_subclass() to use the existing name instead of a new one. Hence, no new name will be created by lockdep_set_subclass(). Hence, the warning is avoided. [boqun: Reword the commit log to state the correct issue] Reported-by: Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1f ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Ahmed Ehab Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240824221031.7751-1-bottaawesome633@gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

drm/syncobj: make lockdep complain on WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT v3

2024-03-01T12:16:51+00:00

[ Upstream commit 7621350c6bb20fb6ab7eb988833ab96eac3dcbef ] DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT can't be used when we hold locks since we are basically waiting for userspace to do something. Holding a lock while doing so can trivial deadlock with page faults etc... So make lockdep complain when a driver tries to do this. v2: Add lockdep_assert_none_held() macro. v3: Add might_sleep() and also use lockdep_assert_none_held() in the IOCTL path. Signed-off-by: Christian König Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/414944/ Stable-dep-of: 3c43177ffb54 ("drm/syncobj: call drm_syncobj_fence_add_wait when WAIT_AVAILABLE flag is set") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/lockdep: Fix lockdep_init_map_*() confusion

2022-08-21T13:15:33+00:00

[ Upstream commit eae6d58d67d9739be5f7ae2dbead1d0ef6528243 ] Commit dfd5e3f5fe27 ("locking/lockdep: Mark local_lock_t") added yet another lockdep_init_map_*() variant, but forgot to update all the existing users of the most complicated version. This could lead to a loss of lock_type and hence an incorrect report. Given the relative rarity of both local_lock and these annotations, this is unlikely to happen in practise, still, best fix things. Fixes: dfd5e3f5fe27 ("locking/lockdep: Mark local_lock_t") Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YqyEDtoan20K0CVD@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/lockdep: Mark local_lock_t

2021-09-15T07:50:41+00:00

[ Upstream commit dfd5e3f5fe27bda91d5cc028c86ffbb7a0614489 ] The local_lock_t's are special, because they cannot form IRQ inversions, make sure we can tell them apart from the rest of the locks. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

Merge branch 'locking/urgent' into locking/core, to pick up fixes

2020-10-09T06:55:17+00:00

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

lockdep: Revert "lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables"

2020-10-09T06:54:00+00:00

The thinking in commit: fddf9055a60d ("lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables") is flawed. While it is true that when we're migratable both CPUs will have a 0 value, it doesn't hold that when we do get migrated in the middle of a raw_cpu_op(), the old CPU will still have 0 by the time we get around to reading it on the new CPU. Luckily, the reason for that commit (s390 using preempt_disable() instead of preempt_disable_notrace() in their percpu code), has since been fixed by commit: 1196f12a2c96 ("s390: don't trace preemption in percpu macros") An audit of arch/*/include/asm/percpu*.h shows there are no other architectures affected by this particular issue. Fixes: fddf9055a60d ("lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables") Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201005095958.GJ2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion

2020-10-09T06:53:30+00:00

Steve reported that lockdep_assert*irq*(), when nested inside lockdep itself, will trigger a false-positive. One example is the stack-trace code, as called from inside lockdep, triggering tracing, which in turn calls RCU, which then uses lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(). Fixes: a21ee6055c30 ("lockdep: Change hardirq{s_enabled,_context} to per-cpu variables") Reported-by: Steven Rostedt Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

lockdep: Extend __bfs() to work with multiple types of dependencies

2020-08-26T10:42:04+00:00

Now we have four types of dependencies in the dependency graph, and not all the pathes carry real dependencies (the dependencies that may cause a deadlock), for example: Given lock A and B, if we have: CPU1 CPU2 ============= ============== write_lock(A); read_lock(B); read_lock(B); write_lock(A); (assuming read_lock(B) is a recursive reader) then we have dependencies A -(ER)-> B, and B -(SN)-> A, and a dependency path A -(ER)-> B -(SN)-> A. In lockdep w/o recursive locks, a dependency path from A to A means a deadlock. However, the above case is obviously not a deadlock, because no one holds B exclusively, therefore no one waits for the other to release B, so who get A first in CPU1 and CPU2 will run non-blockingly. As a result, dependency path A -(ER)-> B -(SN)-> A is not a real/strong dependency that could cause a deadlock. From the observation above, we know that for a dependency path to be real/strong, no two adjacent dependencies can be as -(*R)-> -(S*)->. Now our mission is to make __bfs() traverse only the strong dependency paths, which is simple: we record whether we only have -(*R)-> for the previous lock_list of the path in lock_list::only_xr, and when we pick a dependency in the traverse, we 1) filter out -(S*)-> dependency if the previous lock_list only has -(*R)-> dependency (i.e. ->only_xr is true) and 2) set the next lock_list::only_xr to true if we only have -(*R)-> left after we filter out dependencies based on 1), otherwise, set it to false. With this extension for __bfs(), we now need to initialize the root of __bfs() properly (with a correct ->only_xr), to do so, we introduce some helper functions, which also cleans up a little bit for the __bfs() root initialization code. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200807074238.1632519-8-boqun.feng@gmail.com

lockdep: Introduce lock_list::dep

2020-08-26T10:42:04+00:00

To add recursive read locks into the dependency graph, we need to store the types of dependencies for the BFS later. There are four types of dependencies: * Exclusive -> Non-recursive dependencies: EN e.g. write_lock(prev) held and try to acquire write_lock(next) or non-recursive read_lock(next), which can be represented as "prev -(EN)-> next" * Shared -> Non-recursive dependencies: SN e.g. read_lock(prev) held and try to acquire write_lock(next) or non-recursive read_lock(next), which can be represented as "prev -(SN)-> next" * Exclusive -> Recursive dependencies: ER e.g. write_lock(prev) held and try to acquire recursive read_lock(next), which can be represented as "prev -(ER)-> next" * Shared -> Recursive dependencies: SR e.g. read_lock(prev) held and try to acquire recursive read_lock(next), which can be represented as "prev -(SR)-> next" So we use 4 bits for the presence of each type in lock_list::dep. Helper functions and macros are also introduced to convert a pair of locks into lock_list::dep bit and maintain the addition of different types of dependencies. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200807074238.1632519-7-boqun.feng@gmail.com

lockdep: Reduce the size of lock_list::distance

2020-08-26T10:42:04+00:00

lock_list::distance is always not greater than MAX_LOCK_DEPTH (which is 48 right now), so a u16 will fit. This patch reduces the size of lock_list::distance to save space, so that we can introduce other fields to help detect recursive read lock deadlocks without increasing the size of lock_list structure. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200807074238.1632519-6-boqun.feng@gmail.com