lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: yama: lockdep warning on yama_ptracer_del
From
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

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-19 18:01    [W:0.059 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site