[PATCH] arch: um: silence lockdep complaint about mmap_sem

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>

When we get into activate_mm(), lockdep complains that we're doing
something strange:

    WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
    5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121 Not tainted
    ------------------------------------------------------
    inside.sh/366 is trying to acquire lock:
    (____ptrval____) (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7

    but task is already holding lock:
    (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7

    which lock already depends on the new lock.

    the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

    -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
           [...]
           __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f
           lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e
           down_write+0x3f/0x98
           flush_old_exec+0x748/0x8d7
           load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb
           [...]

    -> #0 (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+.}:
           [...]
           __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f
           lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e
           _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83
           flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7
           load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb
           [...]

    other info that might help us debug this:

     Possible unsafe locking scenario:

           CPU0                    CPU1
           ----                    ----
      lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
                                   lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
                                   lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
      lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);

     *** DEADLOCK ***

    2 locks held by inside.sh/366:
     #0: (____ptrval____) (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.}, at: __do_execve_file+0x12d/0x869
     #1: (____ptrval____) (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: flush_old_exec+0x6c5/0x8d7

    stack backtrace:
    CPU: 0 PID: 366 Comm: inside.sh Not tainted 5.1.0-10252-gb00152307319-dirty #121
    Stack:
     [...]
    Call Trace:
     [<600420de>] show_stack+0x13b/0x155
     [<6048906b>] dump_stack+0x2a/0x2c
     [<6009ae64>] print_circular_bug+0x332/0x343
     [<6009c5c6>] check_prev_add+0x669/0xdad
     [<600a06b4>] __lock_acquire+0x12ab/0x139f
     [<6009f3d0>] lock_acquire+0x155/0x18e
     [<604a07e0>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x83
     [<60151e6a>] flush_old_exec+0x703/0x8d7
     [<601a8eb8>] load_elf_binary+0x2ca/0xddb
     [...]

I think it's because in exec_mmap() we have

	down_read(&old_mm->mmap_sem);
...
        task_lock(tsk);
...
	activate_mm(active_mm, mm);
	(which does down_write(&mm->mmap_sem))

I'm not really sure why lockdep throws in the whole knowledge
about the task lock, but it seems that old_mm and mm shouldn't
ever be the same (and it doesn't deadlock) so tell lockdep that
they're different.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
---
 arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h
index fca34b2177e2..129fb1d1f1c5 100644
--- a/arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h
+++ b/arch/um/include/asm/mmu_context.h
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static inline void activate_mm(struct mm_struct *old, struct mm_struct *new)
 	 * when the new ->mm is used for the first time.
 	 */
 	__switch_mm(&new->context.id);
-	down_write(&new->mmap_sem);
+	down_write_nested(&new->mmap_sem, 1);
 	uml_setup_stubs(new);
 	up_write(&new->mmap_sem);
 }
-- 
2.17.2


_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um