Re: [PATCH] lockdep: make print_lock_name() robust against non-existing lock_class

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Date: Thu Apr 16 2015 - 10:50:36 EST


On 04/15/2015 04:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> During sysrq's show-held-locks command it is possible that hlock_class()
>> returns NULL for a given lock. The result is then (after the warning):
>>
>> |BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000001c
>> |IP: [<c1088145>] get_usage_chars+0x5/0x100
>> |Call Trace:
>> | [<c1088263>] print_lock_name+0x23/0x60
>> | [<c1576b57>] print_lock+0x5d/0x7e
>> | [<c1088314>] lockdep_print_held_locks+0x74/0xe0
>> | [<c1088652>] debug_show_all_locks+0x132/0x1b0
>> | [<c1315c48>] sysrq_handle_showlocks+0x8/0x10
>>
>> This *might* happen because the thread on the other CPU drops the lock
>> after we are looking ->lockdep_depth and ->held_locks points no longer
>> to a lock that is held.
>> The fix here is to simply ignore it and continue.
>
> Hmm, but in that case we might equally run into the hlock_class() debug
> check which would kill all of lockdep.
>
> Note that lock_release_nested() with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP will actually
> clear those fields.
>
> Would something like the below work for you?

Andreas confirmed that it works for him on v3.18 with minor adjustment.

<---
+ struct held_lock lock = READ_ONCE(*hlock);
+ unsigned int class_idx = lock.class_idx;
--->

So, yes, thanks.

> ---
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index ba77ab5f64dd..0ef89f830ff4 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -551,7 +551,18 @@ static void print_lockdep_cache(struct lockdep_map *lock)
>
> static void print_lock(struct held_lock *hlock)
> {
> - print_lock_name(hlock_class(hlock));
> + /*
> + * We can be called locklessly through debug_show_all_locks() so be
> + * extra careful, the hlock might have been released and cleared.
> + */
> + unsigned int class_idx = READ_ONCE(hlock->class_idx);
> +
> + if (!class_idx || (class_idx - 1) >= MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS) {
> + printk("<RELEASED>\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + print_lock_name(lock_classes + class_idx - 1);
> printk(", at: ");
> print_ip_sym(hlock->acquire_ip);
> }
>
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/