lockdep: Don't create the wrong dependency on hlock->check == 0
Test-case: DEFINE_MUTEX(m1); DEFINE_MUTEX(m2); DEFINE_MUTEX(mx); void lockdep_should_complain(void) { lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx); // m1 -> mx -> m2 mutex_lock(&m1); mutex_lock(&mx); mutex_lock(&m2); mutex_unlock(&m2); mutex_unlock(&mx); mutex_unlock(&m1); // m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning mutex_lock(&m2); mutex_lock(&m1); mutex_unlock(&m1); mutex_unlock(&m2); } this doesn't trigger any warning, lockdep can't detect the trivial deadlock. This is because lock(&mx) correctly avoids m1 -> mx dependency, it skips validate_chain() due to mx->check == 0. But lock(&m2) wrongly adds mx -> m2 and thus m1 -> m2 is not created. rcu_lock_acquire()->lock_acquire(check => 0) is fine due to read == 2, so currently only __lockdep_no_validate__ can trigger this problem. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182010.GA26498@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
fb9edbe984
commit
1b5ff816ca
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -1936,12 +1936,12 @@ check_prevs_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
|
|||
|
||||
for (;;) {
|
||||
int distance = curr->lockdep_depth - depth + 1;
|
||||
hlock = curr->held_locks + depth-1;
|
||||
hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
|
||||
* added:
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (hlock->read != 2) {
|
||||
if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
|
||||
if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
|
||||
distance, trylock_loop))
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue