user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v5.4.114

lockdep: Add a missing initialization hint to the "INFO: Trying to register non-static key" message

2021-04-21T10:56:13Z

[ Upstream commit 3a85969e9d912d5dd85362ee37b5f81266e00e77 ] Since this message is printed when dynamically allocated spinlocks (e.g. kzalloc()) are used without initialization (e.g. spin_lock_init()), suggest to developers to check whether initialization functions for objects were called, before making developers wonder what annotation is missing. [ mingo: Minor tweaks to the message. ] Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210321064913.4619-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling

2021-04-07T12:47:40Z

[ Upstream commit 5de2055d31ea88fd9ae9709ac95c372a505a60fa ] The use_ww_ctx flag is passed to mutex_optimistic_spin(), but the function doesn't use it. The frequent use of the (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) combination is repetitive. In fact, ww_ctx should not be used at all if !use_ww_ctx. Simplify ww_mutex code by dropping use_ww_ctx from mutex_optimistic_spin() an clear ww_ctx if !use_ww_ctx. In this way, we can replace (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) by just (ww_ctx). Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rtmutex: Remove unused argument from rt_mutex_proxy_unlock()

2021-01-30T12:54:09Z

commit 2156ac1934166d6deb6cd0f6ffc4c1076ec63697 upstream Nothing uses the argument. Remove it as preparation to use pi_state_update_owner(). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

exec: Transform exec_update_mutex into a rw_semaphore

2021-01-09T12:44:55Z

[ Upstream commit f7cfd871ae0c5008d94b6f66834e7845caa93c15 ] Recently syzbot reported[0] that there is a deadlock amongst the users of exec_update_mutex. The problematic lock ordering found by lockdep was: perf_event_open (exec_update_mutex -> ovl_i_mutex) chown (ovl_i_mutex -> sb_writes) sendfile (sb_writes -> p->lock) by reading from a proc file and writing to overlayfs proc_pid_syscall (p->lock -> exec_update_mutex) While looking at possible solutions it occured to me that all of the users and possible users involved only wanted to state of the given process to remain the same. They are all readers. The only writer is exec. There is no reason for readers to block on each other. So fix this deadlock by transforming exec_update_mutex into a rw_semaphore named exec_update_lock that only exec takes for writing. Cc: Jann Horn Cc: Vasiliy Kulikov Cc: Al Viro Cc: Bernd Edlinger Cc: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Christopher Yeoh Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Sargun Dhillon Cc: Christian Brauner Cc: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Fixes: eea9673250db ("exec: Add exec_update_mutex to replace cred_guard_mutex") [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/00000000000063640c05ade8e3de@google.com Reported-by: syzbot+db9cdf3dd1f64252c6ef@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87ft4mbqen.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rwsem: Implement down_read_interruptible

2021-01-09T12:44:55Z

[ Upstream commit 31784cff7ee073b34d6eddabb95e3be2880a425c ] In preparation for converting exec_update_mutex to a rwsem so that multiple readers can execute in parallel and not deadlock, add down_read_interruptible. This is needed for perf_event_open to be converted (with no semantic changes) from working on a mutex to wroking on a rwsem. Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87k0tybqfy.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rwsem: Implement down_read_killable_nested

2021-01-09T12:44:55Z

[ Upstream commit 0f9368b5bf6db0c04afc5454b1be79022a681615 ] In preparation for converting exec_update_mutex to a rwsem so that multiple readers can execute in parallel and not deadlock, add down_read_killable_nested. This is needed so that kcmp_lock can be converted from working on a mutexes to working on rw_semaphores. Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87o8jabqh3.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/lockdep: Decrement IRQ context counters when removing lock chain

2020-10-01T11:17:33Z

[ Upstream commit b3b9c187dc2544923a601733a85352b9ddaba9b3 ] There are currently three counters to track the IRQ context of a lock chain - nr_hardirq_chains, nr_softirq_chains and nr_process_chains. They are incremented when a new lock chain is added, but they are not decremented when a lock chain is removed. That causes some of the statistic counts reported by /proc/lockdep_stats to be incorrect. IRQ Fix that by decrementing the right counter when a lock chain is removed. Since inc_chains() no longer accesses hardirq_context and softirq_context directly, it is moved out from the CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS conditional compilation block. Fixes: a0b0fd53e1e6 ("locking/lockdep: Free lock classes that are no longer in use") Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-2-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/lockdep: Fix overflow in presentation of average lock-time

2020-09-03T09:26:47Z

[ Upstream commit a7ef9b28aa8d72a1656fa6f0a01bbd1493886317 ] Though the number of lock-acquisitions is tracked as unsigned long, this is passed as the divisor to div_s64() which interprets it as a s32, giving nonsense values with more than 2 billion acquisitons. E.g. acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2350439395 0.07 353.38 649647067.36 0.-32 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200725185110.11588-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locktorture: Print ratio of acquisitions, not failures

2020-04-23T08:36:44Z

commit 80c503e0e68fbe271680ab48f0fe29bc034b01b7 upstream. The __torture_print_stats() function in locktorture.c carefully initializes local variable "min" to statp[0].n_lock_acquired, but then compares it to statp[i].n_lock_fail. Given that the .n_lock_fail field should normally be zero, and given the initialization, it seems reasonable to display the maximum and minimum number acquisitions instead of miscomputing the maximum and minimum number of failures. This commit therefore switches from failures to acquisitions. And this turns out to be not only a day-zero bug, but entirely my own fault. I hate it when that happens! Fixes: 0af3fe1efa53 ("locktorture: Add a lock-torture kernel module") Reported-by: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Will Deacon Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()

2020-04-17T08:50:05Z

[ Upstream commit 25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004 ] Qian Cai reported a bug when PROVE_RCU_LIST=y, and read on /proc/lockdep triggered a warning: [ ] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirqs_enabled) ... [ ] Call Trace: [ ] lock_is_held_type+0x5d/0x150 [ ] ? rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online+0x64/0x80 [ ] rcu_read_lock_any_held+0xac/0x100 [ ] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0xc0/0xc0 [ ] ? __slab_free+0x421/0x540 [ ] ? kasan_kmalloc+0x9/0x10 [ ] ? __kmalloc_node+0x1d7/0x320 [ ] ? kvmalloc_node+0x6f/0x80 [ ] __bfs+0x28a/0x3c0 [ ] ? class_equal+0x30/0x30 [ ] lockdep_count_forward_deps+0x11a/0x1a0 The warning got triggered because lockdep_count_forward_deps() call __bfs() without current->lockdep_recursion being set, as a result a lockdep internal function (__bfs()) is checked by lockdep, which is unexpected, and the inconsistency between the irq-off state and the state traced by lockdep caused the warning. Apart from this warning, lockdep internal functions like __bfs() should always be protected by current->lockdep_recursion to avoid potential deadlocks and data inconsistency, therefore add the current->lockdep_recursion on-and-off section to protect __bfs() in both lockdep_count_forward_deps() and lockdep_count_backward_deps() Reported-by: Qian Cai Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin