lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: yama: lockdep warning on yama_ptracer_del
On 11/19/2012 11:23 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kees,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I was fuzzing with trinity within a KVM tools guest (lkvm) on a linux-next kernel, and got the
>>>> following dump which I believe to be noise due to how the timers work - but I'm not 100% sure.
>>>> ...
>>>> [ 954.674123] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>>> [ 954.674123]
>>>> [ 954.674123] CPU0 CPU1
>>>> [ 954.674123] ---- ----
>>>> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock);
>>>> [ 954.674123] local_irq_disable();
>>>> [ 954.674123] lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
>>>> [ 954.674123] lock(ptracer_relations_lock);
>>>> [ 954.674123] <Interrupt>
>>>> [ 954.674123] lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
>>>> [ 954.674123]
>>>> [ 954.674123] *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>
>>> I've been wanting to get rid of the Yama ptracer_relations_lock
>>> anyway, so maybe I should do that now just to avoid this case at all?
>>
>> I still see this one in -rc6, is there anything to get rid of it
>> before the release?
>
> I'm not sure about changes to the timer locks, but I haven't been able
> to get rid of the locking on Yama's task_free path. I did send a patch
> to get rid of locking during a read, though:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/808

Aw, alrighty. It didn't make it to -next yet though.

I'll add the patch to my tree and test with it.


Thanks,
Sasha



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-19 20:21    [W:0.068 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site