linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
	Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Avoid to modify chain keys in validate_chain()
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:28:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201110172838.GP2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201102053743.450459-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:37:41PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Chris Wilson reported a problem spotted by check_chain_key(): a chain
> key got changed in validate_chain() because we modify the ->read in
> validate_chain() to skip checks for dependency adding, and ->read is
> taken into calculation for chain key since commit f611e8cf98ec
> ("lockdep: Take read/write status in consideration when generate
> chainkey").
> 
> Fix this by avoiding to modify ->read in validate_chain() based on two
> facts: a) since we now support recursive read lock detection, there is
> no need to skip checks for dependency adding for recursive readers, b)
> since we have a), there is only one case left (nest_lock) where we want
> to skip checks in validate_chain(), we simply remove the modification
> for ->read and rely on the return value of check_deadlock() to skip the
> dependency adding.
> 
> Reported-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

Thanks Boqun!

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-10 17:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-29 14:31 lockdep null-ptr-deref Qian Cai
2020-09-29 23:08 ` Boqun Feng
2020-09-30  9:16   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30  9:49     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-09-30 12:18       ` Boqun Feng
2020-09-30 19:02         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-02 12:36           ` Boqun Feng
2020-10-02 13:09             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-02 13:35               ` Boqun Feng
2020-10-02 10:06       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-02 13:40         ` Qian Cai
2020-10-07 16:20       ` [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix usage_traceoverflow tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 11:29         ` Chris Wilson
2020-10-27 11:59           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 12:30             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 12:48               ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 14:13                 ` Chris Wilson
2020-10-31 11:30                 ` [tip: locking/urgent] lockdep: Fix nr_unused_locks accounting tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 13:29               ` [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix usage_traceoverflow Chris Wilson
2020-10-27 15:45                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-27 16:34                   ` Chris Wilson
2020-10-28 17:40                     ` Chris Wilson
2020-10-28 18:06                       ` Chris Wilson
2020-10-28 19:42                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-28 19:59                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-30  3:51                           ` Boqun Feng
2020-10-30  9:38                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-30  9:55                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-02  5:37                               ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Avoid to modify chain keys in validate_chain() Boqun Feng
2020-11-02  5:37                                 ` [PATCH 2/2] lockdep/selftest: Add spin_nest_lock test Boqun Feng
2020-12-03 10:35                                   ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-11-05  6:25                                 ` [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Avoid to modify chain keys in validate_chain() Boqun Feng
2020-11-10 17:28                                 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-11-11  8:23                                 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Boqun Feng
2020-10-09  7:58       ` [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix usage_traceoverflow tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201110172838.GP2594@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=cai@redhat.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).