Re: [lockdep] b09be676e0 BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000001f2

[Byungchul Park]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:56:05AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Thank you very much for explaining it in detail.
> 
> But let's shift a viewpoint. Precisely, I didn't want to work on locks
> but *waiters* becasue dependancies causing deadlocks only can be created
> by waiters - nevertheless I have no idea for a better name to my feature.
> 
> Lockdep should also have worked on waiters instead of locks, in the
> strict sense. Having said that, we can work on locks to detect deadlocks
> one way or another, becasue typical locks implicitly include wait
> operations except trylocks, which in turn of course cause other waitings
> once it's acquired successfully, though.
> 
> I mean, all we have to do to detect deadlocks is to identify
> dependencies. *That's all*. IMHO, we don't need to consider "transfering
> and recieving locks" and even lock protection. We only have to focus on
                                               ^
                                         and owership.

> dependecies by waiters and how to identify dependencies from them.
> 
> > This is kind of similar to my opinion on the C "volatile" keyword, and
> > why we do not generally use it in the kernel. It's not the *data* that
> > is volatile, because the data itself might be stable or volatile
> > depending on whether you hold a lock or not. It's the _code_access_
> > that is either volatile or not, and rather than using volatile on data
> > structures, we use volatile in code (although not explicitly as such -
> > we hide it inside the accessors like "READ_ONCE()" etc).
> 
> I like it. I agree with you.
> 
> > I agree wholeheartedly that it can often be much more convenient to
> > just mark one particular lock as being special, but at the same time
> > it's really not the lock itself that is interesting, it's the
> > _handoff_ of the lock that is interesting.
> > 
> > And particularly for cross-thread lock/unlock sequences, the hand-over
> > really is special. For a normal lock/unlock sequence, the lock itself
> > is the thing that protects the data. But that is simply not true if
> > you have a cross-thread hand-over of the lock: you also need to make
> > sure that the hand-over itself is safe. That's generally very easy to
> > do, you just make sure that the original owner of the lock has done
> > everything the lock protects and then make the lock available with
> > smp_store_release() and then the receiving end should do
> > smp_load_acquire() to read the lock pointer (or lock transfer status,
> > or whatever). Because *within* a thread, memory ordering is guaranteed
> > on its own. Between two threads? Memory ordering comes into play even
> > when you *hold* the lock.
> 
> I and Peter have handled memory ordering carefully, when identifying
> dependencies between waiters. That was where we have to consider memory
> ordering.
> 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul