lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[PATCH 2/5] lockdep: don't create the wrong dependency on hlock->check == 0
Test-case:

DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);

void lockdep_should_complain(void)
{
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);

// m1 -> mx -> m2
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);

// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
}

this doesn't trigger any warning, lockdep can't detect the trivial
deadlock.

This is because lock(&mx) correctly avoids m1 -> mx dependency, it
skips validate_chain() due to mx->check == 0. But lock(&m2) wrongly
adds mx -> m2 and thus m1 -> m2 is not created.

rcu_lock_acquire()->lock_acquire(check => 0) is fine due to read == 2,
so currently only __lockdep_no_validate__ can trigger this problem.

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index c6a7d9d..543e120 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1934,12 +1934,12 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)

for (;;) {
int distance = curr->lockdep_depth - depth + 1;
- hlock = curr->held_locks + depth-1;
+ hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
/*
* Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
* added:
*/
- if (hlock->read != 2) {
+ if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
distance, trylock_loop))
return 0;
--
1.5.5.1


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-20 20:01    [W:0.234 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site