Re: yama: lockdep warning on yama_ptracer_del

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/