Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: corrupted pvqspinlock in htab_map_update_elem | From | Waiman Long <> | Date | Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:14:41 -0500 |
| |
On 2/1/21 1:09 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > 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? > That is right. This patch just fixes the bug in lockdep.
Cheers, Longman
|  |