lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: corrupted pvqspinlock in htab_map_update_elem
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 6:54 PM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/1/21 6:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 10:50:58AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >>> queued_spin_unlock arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:56 [inline]
> >>> lockdep_unlock+0x10e/0x290 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:124
> >>> debug_locks_off_graph_unlock kernel/locking/lockdep.c:165 [inline]
> >>> print_usage_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3710 [inline]
> >> Ha, I think you hit a bug in lockdep.
> > Something like so I suppose.
> >
> > ---
> > Subject: locking/lockdep: Avoid unmatched unlock
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Date: Mon Feb 1 11:55:38 CET 2021
> >
> > Commit f6f48e180404 ("lockdep: Teach lockdep about "USED" <- "IN-NMI"
> > inversions") overlooked that print_usage_bug() releases the graph_lock
> > and called it without the graph lock held.
> >
> > Fixes: f6f48e180404 ("lockdep: Teach lockdep about "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions")
> > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -3773,7 +3773,7 @@ static void
> > print_usage_bug(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
> > enum lock_usage_bit prev_bit, enum lock_usage_bit new_bit)
> > {
> > - if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock() || debug_locks_silent)
> > + if (!debug_locks_off() || debug_locks_silent)
> > return;
> >
> > pr_warn("\n");
> > @@ -3814,6 +3814,7 @@ valid_state(struct task_struct *curr, st
> > enum lock_usage_bit new_bit, enum lock_usage_bit bad_bit)
> > {
> > if (unlikely(hlock_class(this)->usage_mask & (1 << bad_bit))) {
> > + graph_unlock()
> > print_usage_bug(curr, this, bad_bit, new_bit);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> I have also suspected doing unlock without a corresponding lock. This
> patch looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Just so that it's not lost: there is still a bug related to bpf map lock, right?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-01 19:12    [W:0.094 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site